Technologies of Politics and Control - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2013-10-21T12:57:18Z

Asellars: Reverted edits by Ike2judo (talk) to last revision by Asellars

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the Internet plays in our lives. The Net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the Internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the Internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

=='''Office Hours'''==

'''Please note:''' we've also created a [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|frequently asked questions]] section that may help as you frame your final paper.

Jeff, Andy, David, and Ryan will all be holding office hours during the normally scheduled class time on May 7th. Please make an appointment by filling your name or username in next to a time slot below. Please also indicate if you'd like to meet in class or over Skype. If you are using Skype, please also email us at is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu with your Skype handle. If you cannot make any of these times but would like to discuss your paper please email us and we'll set up another time to talk.

''Example:
* 5:30-5:45 - asellars Skype''

'''Jeff'''

* 5:30-5:45 Asmith in class
* 5:45-6:00 Kaley Sweeney in class
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45 Zak Paster via Skype
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Andy'''

* 5:30-5:45 Hgaylor In Class
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15 Jaclyn Horowitz via Skype
* 7:15-7:30

'''David'''

* 5:30-5:45 Rich via phone
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Ryan'''

* 5:30-5:45 Caroline - Skype - carolineharvard
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

Main Page

2013-09-18T17:36:12Z

Asellars: Reverted edits by FelipeMckeon (talk) to last revision by Asellars

Final Projects

2013-05-14T20:30:08Z

Asellars:

{{AssignmentCal}}

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

== Instructions ==

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Final," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Final.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions ==

*Name: Becca Luberoff
*Title: Creating and Maintaining a Safe and Supportive Environment in Online Mental Health Communities: A Comparative Study of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and HealthyPlace.com
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:BeccaLuberoff_Final.docx
--[[User:BeccaLuberoff|BeccaLuberoff]] 01:34, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*Pseudonym: interestingcomments (Student ID#10789842)

*Title:Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community?
A comparative observational study of two publically traded company message board communities

*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Interesting_comments_5.10.13TAG_LSTU_Assignment_.docx
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:02, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Pseudonym: Raven
*Title: A Conversation That Can Change the World
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Raven_Final_Paper.docx
[[User:Raven|Raven]] 12:39, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
****

*Name or Pseudonym: sridder
*Title: Social Disorganization Theory Proves that Social Commerce Reduces Internet Fraud
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Sridder_Final.docx
[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 13:25, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Pseudonym: DearAlice

Title: One Company, Different Social Media Platforms, Different Conversations

Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/2013-05-12_DearAlice_Assignment_Final.docx

--[[User:Dear Alice|Dear Alice]] 20:55, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Rich
*Title: Is Wikipedia an Open Collaborative Effort or a Despotic Hierarchy
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Internet_Control_Final_Project_May_12_2013-Modified.docx
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:16, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

*Name: Milena Grado
*Title: How Does "Reclame Aqui" Avoid Bias?
*Link:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Finalproject_milenagrado.doc
[[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 18:14, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
***
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: MichaeleKeane
*Title:A Single Site Case Study of the Effect of Censorship on a Web Community
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Assignment_5_Final_ver9_keane.docx
*[[User:Michaelekeane|Michaelekeane]] 22:08, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
*****
*Name or Pseudonym: AaronEttl
*Title: The Successful Balance Achieved By Kickstarter
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:AaronEttl_Final.docx
[[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 08:59, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Joshywonder
*Title: Lawbuzz: The Effects of a SLAPP Law Suit on Anonymous Forum Participation
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Joshywonder_Final_Project.docx [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 11:37, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or Pseudonym: DanielReissHarris
*Title: Piracy; the Source, the Cost and the Solution
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/DanielReissHarris_Final.docx
*[[User:DanielReissHarris|DanielReissHarris]] 11:47, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Maria Jurado
*Title: Internet Regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Final.pdf
--[[User:Maria|Maria]] 12:53, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Zak Paster
*Title: Online Giving: A New Fundraising Era
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Zak_Paster_Final_Project_Online_Giving-A_New_Fundraising_Era_5-14-13_vFinal.pdf
[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:31, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****

*Name or Pseudonym: Asmith
*Title: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_FinalProject.pdf
[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:16, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

*****
*Name or Pseudonym: Kaley Sweeney
*Title: A Glance Inside the Hermit Kingdom: Instagram in North Korea
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/KaleySweeney_Assignment5.docx
15:21, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

****
*Name or Pseudonym: Rebekah Judson
*Title: Twitter Gets Weird: On the Transgressive Humor and Community Practices of Weird Twitter
*Link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:RjudsonweirdtwitterFINAL.doc
[[User:Rebekahjudson|Rebekahjudson]] 15:26, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Final Projects

2013-05-07T14:55:40Z

Asellars:

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-05-07T14:55:24Z

Asellars:

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline

****

*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Final Project

2013-05-07T14:55:11Z

Asellars:

<big><big>'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''</big></big>

{{AssignmentCal}}
'''DUE MAY 14, 2013'''

Class on May 14 will consist of [[Extra Credit]] presentations and a final wrap-up.

=== Description ===
The final project is a 8-10 page research paper, built around taking the theoretical concepts about Internet control brought forward in the course, generating a hypothesis around that idea, and then examining real-world Internet activity to answer that question. The student should develop a framework that endeavors to answer the [[#Research questions|research question]] by observation of Internet activity, and then report the results of applying that framework. The most successful projects develop a narrow research
question tied to the behavior of a specific online community or set of communities, and then develop a framework consisting of observation within that community or comparison to another similarly-situated community.

In lieu of submitting a paper, you may present your finding using a different medium, such as a podcast, video, or web page. If you do submit a paper, your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a serif font (e.g. Times New Roman, Cambria,
Palatino, etc.). If you submit through another medium, we shall expect a depth and level of analysis equivalent to that of an 8-10 page paper. '''If you are interested in pursuing something other than a paper, please mention this in your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|prospectus]], due February 26th.'''

The final project should be integrative - bringing together materials and issues from class and expanding upon them. Ideally, students will identify the topic for Assignment 2 and leverage their time working on the other assignments towards the final project. It will be detrimental to change mid-stream, due to the limited time of the course.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]] as long as you let us know by March 12.'''

===Format===
Your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif serif] font (Times New Roman, Cambria, Palatino, etc.). Please upload your paper as a .doc, a .odt, or a .pdf.

You may use any commonly accepted style to cite your sources (Chicago, MLA, Bluebook, etc.), but please be consistent.

=== Submissions ===

Please include your final project here, including name(s) and title: [[Final Projects]]

Submit the final project on or before May 14.

=== Research questions ===
In broadest terms, the general theme of the class is control. We look at who controls access to the web, who controls what content goes on the web, what tools they use (e.g. laws, contracts or other written rules, norms, code, other incentives), what sorts of things they seek to regulate and why, and how their decisions have both their intended effect and unintended consequences.

The goal of the project is to take this general theme and apply it to a particular online circumstance. The project should consist principally of original documentation of Internet activity, analyzed through the paradigms discussed in the class and in light of the topical discussion had in the class. This begins by selecting a particular research question or small set of questions to explore. It is impossible to do a meaningful analysis of any question across the whole Internet in 8-10 pages, so you should select a particular research frame for your question. This could be an online community or set of communities, a particular website, or participants in a particular online game. Your research may focus on a single Internet project or compare two communities, or sub-units within a given community.

The next step will be to gather evidence that will help to answer your research question. This should be primarily direct observation made by you exploring the community online. (Avoid direct engagement with members of the community, as your influence on their behavior will inherently change what you are trying to observe.) The observation should be methodical to avoid any arbitrariness or selection bias.

Finally, you will compile this into a final report that summarizes your research topic, methods and conclusions. We hope that you will be able to weave in one or more of the theories and constructs that have been introduced in the class.

Finding appropriate research questions is often the most complex and time consuming process in research and will normally take many iterations; feel free to contact the class staff if you have questions or need help narrowing a topic.

=== Steps ===
# Decide upon a [[#Research questions|research question]] set of research questions.
# Define a research frame (website, federation of websites, group, community, etc)
# Gather evidence
# Compile into report that summarizes your topic, methods, and conclusions

=== Frequently Asked Questions ===

''As we have last questions and thoughts about the final, we'll gather those here.''

Q1: Do I have to include exhibits in my page limit?

A1: No. In fact, we'd prefer it if you attached an appendix in the back with any reference material (screenshots, transcripts, etc.).

Q2: How much do I have to describe the scholarship I'm using in my analysis?

A2: If it is material from the class reading, you can assume that the reader has seen that material. If you are introducing new concepts, spend a few sentences explaining them, but keep the majority of the paper focused on your observations and analysis.

Q3: How strict is the 8-10 page limit?

A3: We are holding that as very strict (with the exception of appendices, noted above). We will only be grading based on the first 10 pages of your analysis; anything after that will not be used in calculating your grad. If you're worried about things to cut, remember: we care much more about observation-informed analysis than exposition and background material.

Main Page

2013-05-07T14:54:56Z

Asellars:

Final Projects

2013-05-07T14:53:42Z

Asellars:

{{AssignmentCal}}

== Instructions ==

''Please name your file "wikiusername_Final," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Final.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or Pseudonym:
*Title:
*Link:

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''

== Submissions ==

Extra Credit Submissions

2013-05-07T14:53:25Z

Asellars:

'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''This assignment is due on May 7.''' Students who submit extra credit projects will receive a one-point increase in their final project grade. If you are presenting in class on the 14th, but do not have material to upload, please indicate so on the section below.

If you do plan on uploading a file, ''please name your file "wikiusername_extracredit," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a PowerPoint document your file should be named "jdoe_extracredit.ppt."

Link to your extra credit below (either by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload uploading it to the wiki] or by linking to an external site) or indicate that you'd like to present your final paper. Please provide a short description of your project/the presentation you plan to give.

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

I would like to participate in the extra credit assignment by sending along a link to an iMovie that will go through "the right to be forgotten" in a narrative format.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)Caroline

****

*Zak Paster_extracredit - Link to extra credit assignment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5e5KPsWxk&feature=youtube_gdata
*The presentation is on autopilot - I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This slide show provides an overview of two fast-growing online giving communities - Crowdrise.com Razoo.com - and cross-compares two of Lessig's Internet forces: ''norms and architecture.''
*[[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 23:00, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

*interestingcomments_extracredit (Student ID 10789842)- Link to extra credit assignment: https://vimeo.com/65635250
*I would like to have it presented during the final class on May 14th.
*This video lecture gives an overview of my research on the topic: Does The SEC Need To Control & Censor The Message Board Community? A comparative observational study of two publicly traded company message board communities.
[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 07:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Final Project

2013-05-07T14:53:05Z

Asellars:

'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''

{{AssignmentCal}}
'''DUE MAY 14, 2013'''

Class on May 14 will consist of [[Extra Credit]] presentations and a final wrap-up.

=== Description ===
The final project is a 8-10 page research paper, built around taking the theoretical concepts about Internet control brought forward in the course, generating a hypothesis around that idea, and then examining real-world Internet activity to answer that question. The student should develop a framework that endeavors to answer the [[#Research questions|research question]] by observation of Internet activity, and then report the results of applying that framework. The most successful projects develop a narrow research
question tied to the behavior of a specific online community or set of communities, and then develop a framework consisting of observation within that community or comparison to another similarly-situated community.

In lieu of submitting a paper, you may present your finding using a different medium, such as a podcast, video, or web page. If you do submit a paper, your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a serif font (e.g. Times New Roman, Cambria,
Palatino, etc.). If you submit through another medium, we shall expect a depth and level of analysis equivalent to that of an 8-10 page paper. '''If you are interested in pursuing something other than a paper, please mention this in your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|prospectus]], due February 26th.'''

The final project should be integrative - bringing together materials and issues from class and expanding upon them. Ideally, students will identify the topic for Assignment 2 and leverage their time working on the other assignments towards the final project. It will be detrimental to change mid-stream, due to the limited time of the course.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]] as long as you let us know by March 12.'''

===Format===
Your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif serif] font (Times New Roman, Cambria, Palatino, etc.). Please upload your paper as a .doc, a .odt, or a .pdf.

You may use any commonly accepted style to cite your sources (Chicago, MLA, Bluebook, etc.), but please be consistent.

=== Submissions ===

Please include your final project here, including name(s) and title: [[Final Projects]]

Submit the final project on or before May 14.

=== Research questions ===
In broadest terms, the general theme of the class is control. We look at who controls access to the web, who controls what content goes on the web, what tools they use (e.g. laws, contracts or other written rules, norms, code, other incentives), what sorts of things they seek to regulate and why, and how their decisions have both their intended effect and unintended consequences.

The goal of the project is to take this general theme and apply it to a particular online circumstance. The project should consist principally of original documentation of Internet activity, analyzed through the paradigms discussed in the class and in light of the topical discussion had in the class. This begins by selecting a particular research question or small set of questions to explore. It is impossible to do a meaningful analysis of any question across the whole Internet in 8-10 pages, so you should select a particular research frame for your question. This could be an online community or set of communities, a particular website, or participants in a particular online game. Your research may focus on a single Internet project or compare two communities, or sub-units within a given community.

The next step will be to gather evidence that will help to answer your research question. This should be primarily direct observation made by you exploring the community online. (Avoid direct engagement with members of the community, as your influence on their behavior will inherently change what you are trying to observe.) The observation should be methodical to avoid any arbitrariness or selection bias.

Finally, you will compile this into a final report that summarizes your research topic, methods and conclusions. We hope that you will be able to weave in one or more of the theories and constructs that have been introduced in the class.

Finding appropriate research questions is often the most complex and time consuming process in research and will normally take many iterations; feel free to contact the class staff if you have questions or need help narrowing a topic.

=== Steps ===
# Decide upon a [[#Research questions|research question]] set of research questions.
# Define a research frame (website, federation of websites, group, community, etc)
# Gather evidence
# Compile into report that summarizes your topic, methods, and conclusions

=== Frequently Asked Questions ===

''As we have last questions and thoughts about the final, we'll gather those here.''

Q1: Do I have to include exhibits in my page limit?

A1: No. In fact, we'd prefer it if you attached an appendix in the back with any reference material (screenshots, transcripts, etc.).

Q2: How much do I have to describe the scholarship I'm using in my analysis?

A2: If it is material from the class reading, you can assume that the reader has seen that material. If you are introducing new concepts, spend a few sentences explaining them, but keep the majority of the paper focused on your observations and analysis.

Q3: How strict is the 8-10 page limit?

A3: We are holding that as very strict (with the exception of appendices, noted above). We will only be grading based on the first 10 pages of your analysis; anything after that will not be used in calculating your grad. If you're worried about things to cut, remember: we care much more about observation-informed analysis than exposition and background material.

Main Page

2013-05-07T14:52:43Z

Asellars:

'''The course evaluation is now live. [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/course-evaluations Log in] to complete the evaluation.'''

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the Internet plays in our lives. The Net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the Internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the Internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

=='''Office Hours'''==

'''Please note:''' we've also created a [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|frequently asked questions]] section that may help as you frame your final paper.

Jeff, Andy, David, and Ryan will all be holding office hours during the normally scheduled class time on May 7th. Please make an appointment by filling your name or username in next to a time slot below. Please also indicate if you'd like to meet in class or over Skype. If you are using Skype, please also email us at is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu with your Skype handle. If you cannot make any of these times but would like to discuss your paper please email us and we'll set up another time to talk.

''Example:
* 5:30-5:45 - asellars Skype''

'''Jeff'''

* 5:30-5:45 Asmith in class
* 5:45-6:00 Kaley Sweeney in class
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45 Zak Paster via Skype
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Andy'''

* 5:30-5:45 Hgaylor In Class
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15 Jaclyn Horowitz via Skype
* 7:15-7:30

'''David'''

* 5:30-5:45 Rich via phone
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Ryan'''

* 5:30-5:45 Caroline - Skype - carolineharvard
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

Final Project

2013-05-05T16:29:44Z

Asellars: /* Frequently Asked Questions */

{{AssignmentCal}}
'''DUE MAY 14, 2013'''

Class on May 14 will consist of [[Extra Credit]] presentations and a final wrap-up.

=== Description ===
The final project is a 8-10 page research paper, built around taking the theoretical concepts about Internet control brought forward in the course, generating a hypothesis around that idea, and then examining real-world Internet activity to answer that question. The student should develop a framework that endeavors to answer the [[#Research questions|research question]] by observation of Internet activity, and then report the results of applying that framework. The most successful projects develop a narrow research
question tied to the behavior of a specific online community or set of communities, and then develop a framework consisting of observation within that community or comparison to another similarly-situated community.

In lieu of submitting a paper, you may present your finding using a different medium, such as a podcast, video, or web page. If you do submit a paper, your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a serif font (e.g. Times New Roman, Cambria,
Palatino, etc.). If you submit through another medium, we shall expect a depth and level of analysis equivalent to that of an 8-10 page paper. '''If you are interested in pursuing something other than a paper, please mention this in your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|prospectus]], due February 26th.'''

The final project should be integrative - bringing together materials and issues from class and expanding upon them. Ideally, students will identify the topic for Assignment 2 and leverage their time working on the other assignments towards the final project. It will be detrimental to change mid-stream, due to the limited time of the course.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]] as long as you let us know by March 12.'''

===Format===
Your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif serif] font (Times New Roman, Cambria, Palatino, etc.). Please upload your paper as a .doc, a .odt, or a .pdf.

You may use any commonly accepted style to cite your sources (Chicago, MLA, Bluebook, etc.), but please be consistent.

=== Submissions ===

Please include your final project here, including name(s) and title: [[Final Projects]]

Submit the final project on or before May 14.

=== Research questions ===
In broadest terms, the general theme of the class is control. We look at who controls access to the web, who controls what content goes on the web, what tools they use (e.g. laws, contracts or other written rules, norms, code, other incentives), what sorts of things they seek to regulate and why, and how their decisions have both their intended effect and unintended consequences.

The goal of the project is to take this general theme and apply it to a particular online circumstance. The project should consist principally of original documentation of Internet activity, analyzed through the paradigms discussed in the class and in light of the topical discussion had in the class. This begins by selecting a particular research question or small set of questions to explore. It is impossible to do a meaningful analysis of any question across the whole Internet in 8-10 pages, so you should select a particular research frame for your question. This could be an online community or set of communities, a particular website, or participants in a particular online game. Your research may focus on a single Internet project or compare two communities, or sub-units within a given community.

The next step will be to gather evidence that will help to answer your research question. This should be primarily direct observation made by you exploring the community online. (Avoid direct engagement with members of the community, as your influence on their behavior will inherently change what you are trying to observe.) The observation should be methodical to avoid any arbitrariness or selection bias.

Finally, you will compile this into a final report that summarizes your research topic, methods and conclusions. We hope that you will be able to weave in one or more of the theories and constructs that have been introduced in the class.

Finding appropriate research questions is often the most complex and time consuming process in research and will normally take many iterations; feel free to contact the class staff if you have questions or need help narrowing a topic.

=== Steps ===
# Decide upon a [[#Research questions|research question]] set of research questions.
# Define a research frame (website, federation of websites, group, community, etc)
# Gather evidence
# Compile into report that summarizes your topic, methods, and conclusions

=== Frequently Asked Questions ===

''As we have last questions and thoughts about the final, we'll gather those here.''

Q1: Do I have to include exhibits in my page limit?

A1: No. In fact, we'd prefer it if you attached an appendix in the back with any reference material (screenshots, transcripts, etc.).

Q2: How much do I have to describe the scholarship I'm using in my analysis?

A2: If it is material from the class reading, you can assume that the reader has seen that material. If you are introducing new concepts, spend a few sentences explaining them, but keep the majority of the paper focused on your observations and analysis.

Q3: How strict is the 8-10 page limit?

A3: We are holding that as very strict (with the exception of appendices, noted above). We will only be grading based on the first 10 pages of your analysis; anything after that will not be used in calculating your grad. If you're worried about things to cut, remember: we care much more about observation-informed analysis than exposition and background material.

Main Page

2013-05-05T16:27:43Z

Asellars: /* Office Hours */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the Internet plays in our lives. The Net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the Internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the Internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

=='''Office Hours'''==

'''Please note:''' we've also created a [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|frequently asked questions]] section that may help as you frame your final paper.

Jeff, Andy, David, and Ryan will all be holding office hours during the normally scheduled class time on May 7th. Please make an appointment by filling your name or username in next to a time slot below. Please also indicate if you'd like to meet in class or over Skype. If you are using Skype, please also email us at is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu with your Skype handle. If you cannot make any of these times but would like to discuss your paper please email us and we'll set up another time to talk.

''Example:
* 5:30-5:45 - asellars Skype''

'''Jeff'''

* 5:30-5:45 Asmith in class
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15 Zak Paster via skype
* 7:15-7:30

'''Andy'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''David'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Ryan'''

* 5:30-5:45 Caroline - Skype - carolineharvard
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

Final Project

2013-05-05T16:26:03Z

Asellars:

{{AssignmentCal}}
'''DUE MAY 14, 2013'''

Class on May 14 will consist of [[Extra Credit]] presentations and a final wrap-up.

=== Description ===
The final project is a 8-10 page research paper, built around taking the theoretical concepts about Internet control brought forward in the course, generating a hypothesis around that idea, and then examining real-world Internet activity to answer that question. The student should develop a framework that endeavors to answer the [[#Research questions|research question]] by observation of Internet activity, and then report the results of applying that framework. The most successful projects develop a narrow research
question tied to the behavior of a specific online community or set of communities, and then develop a framework consisting of observation within that community or comparison to another similarly-situated community.

In lieu of submitting a paper, you may present your finding using a different medium, such as a podcast, video, or web page. If you do submit a paper, your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a serif font (e.g. Times New Roman, Cambria,
Palatino, etc.). If you submit through another medium, we shall expect a depth and level of analysis equivalent to that of an 8-10 page paper. '''If you are interested in pursuing something other than a paper, please mention this in your [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|prospectus]], due February 26th.'''

The final project should be integrative - bringing together materials and issues from class and expanding upon them. Ideally, students will identify the topic for Assignment 2 and leverage their time working on the other assignments towards the final project. It will be detrimental to change mid-stream, due to the limited time of the course.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]] as long as you let us know by March 12.'''

===Format===
Your paper should be 8-10 pages long, double spaced, and use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif serif] font (Times New Roman, Cambria, Palatino, etc.). Please upload your paper as a .doc, a .odt, or a .pdf.

You may use any commonly accepted style to cite your sources (Chicago, MLA, Bluebook, etc.), but please be consistent.

=== Submissions ===

Please include your final project here, including name(s) and title: [[Final Projects]]

Submit the final project on or before May 14.

=== Research questions ===
In broadest terms, the general theme of the class is control. We look at who controls access to the web, who controls what content goes on the web, what tools they use (e.g. laws, contracts or other written rules, norms, code, other incentives), what sorts of things they seek to regulate and why, and how their decisions have both their intended effect and unintended consequences.

The goal of the project is to take this general theme and apply it to a particular online circumstance. The project should consist principally of original documentation of Internet activity, analyzed through the paradigms discussed in the class and in light of the topical discussion had in the class. This begins by selecting a particular research question or small set of questions to explore. It is impossible to do a meaningful analysis of any question across the whole Internet in 8-10 pages, so you should select a particular research frame for your question. This could be an online community or set of communities, a particular website, or participants in a particular online game. Your research may focus on a single Internet project or compare two communities, or sub-units within a given community.

The next step will be to gather evidence that will help to answer your research question. This should be primarily direct observation made by you exploring the community online. (Avoid direct engagement with members of the community, as your influence on their behavior will inherently change what you are trying to observe.) The observation should be methodical to avoid any arbitrariness or selection bias.

Finally, you will compile this into a final report that summarizes your research topic, methods and conclusions. We hope that you will be able to weave in one or more of the theories and constructs that have been introduced in the class.

Finding appropriate research questions is often the most complex and time consuming process in research and will normally take many iterations; feel free to contact the class staff if you have questions or need help narrowing a topic.

=== Steps ===
# Decide upon a [[#Research questions|research question]] set of research questions.
# Define a research frame (website, federation of websites, group, community, etc)
# Gather evidence
# Compile into report that summarizes your topic, methods, and conclusions

=== Frequently Asked Questions ===

''As we have last questions and thoughts about the final, we'll gather those here.''

Q: Do I have to include exhibits in my page limit?

A: No. In fact, we'd prefer it if you attached an appendix in the back with any reference material (screenshots, transcripts, etc.).

Q: How much do I have to describe the scholarship I'm using in my analysis?

A: If it is material from the class reading, you can assume that the reader has seen that material. If you are introducing new concepts, spend a few sentences explaining them, but keep the majority of the paper focused on your observations and analysis.

Main Page

2013-04-29T13:16:47Z

Asellars:

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2013 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

It is hard to overstate the role the Internet plays in our lives. The Net has developed not only as the greatest means of producing and sharing information that the world has ever known, but also as a fundamental tool in global political, social, and economic processes. The Net has been heralded by many as nothing less than a means of fundamentally transforming our world into one that is more just, more democratic, and more affluent, while redrawing the boundaries of political and economic power. But the Net is no longer a frontier, and the early days of the Internet exceptionalism have given way to increased regulatory responses. Just as the Internet allowed users to discover new and interesting ways to transform lives, those who seek to control the levers of power around the Internet have discovered means of controlling its content and dissemination, through technological, monetary, normative, and legal means…(4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 29
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 5
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 12
| [[A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 19
| [[Whose Values? International Issues with Internet Regulation]]
|-
| Feb 26
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 5
| [[Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application]]
|-
| Mar 12
| [[Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances]]
|-
| Mar 19
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 26
| [[Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Apr 2
| [[Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd]]
|-
| Apr 9
| [[Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism]]
|-
| Apr 16
| [[Informing the Public in the Internet Age]]
|-
| Apr 23
| [[Privacy]]
|-
| Apr 30
| [[The Profitability of the Internet]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| May 7
|''No class - final project preparation''
| ''(Optional [[Assignments#Extra_Credit|Extra Credit]] due)''
|
|-
| May 14
|Final class - wrap up and student presentations
|''([[Final Project]] due)''
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
* [http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/writing.jsp Extension School Writing Center]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==

You can participate during class either by attending in person or through Adobe Connect:

* The class will be held in the conference room at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])

* You can use Adobe Connect to participate during class time. '''Visit [http://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/lstu_e120 our Adobe Connect site] and log in as guest.'''

: We will be experimenting with remote audiovisual presentation through the Adobe Connect platform. We recommend that, if you would like to speak during class, you use a combination headphone/microphone to participate. Alternatively, you may use headphones along with your computer's built-in mic. As a last resort, you can use your computer's built-in mic without headphones, but please be aware that this may cause audio issues for both you and the class as a whole.

: ''Note: When you log in to Adobe Connect, you will log in as a guest. Please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation. If you use a pseudonym, let one of the TAs know who you are so we can be sure to give you credit.''

: If you have any trouble running Adobe Connect, please go to the [https://continuinged.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm support page on Adobe Connect's site] or click on the "Help" button in the upper right corner of the Connect window.

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available [http://cm.dce.harvard.edu/2013/02/23879/dceweb-videopage.shtml here]. Videos are typically available 1-2 days after class.

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: [mailto:is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

=='''Office Hours'''==

Jeff, Andy, David, and Ryan will all be holding office hours during the normally scheduled class time on May 7th. Please make an appointment by filling your name or username in next to a time slot below. Please also indicate if you'd like to meet in class or over Skype. If you are using Skype, please also email us at is2013@cyber.law.harvard.edu with your Skype handle. If you cannot make any of these times but would like to discuss your paper please email us and we'll set up another time to talk.

''Example:
* 5:30-5:45 - asellars Skype''

'''Jeff'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Andy'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''David'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

'''Ryan'''

* 5:30-5:45
* 5:45-6:00
* 6:00-6:15
* 6:15-6:30
* 6:30-6:45
* 6:45-7:00
* 7:00-7:15
* 7:15-7:30

Main Page

2013-04-22T15:05:44Z

Asellars:

Privacy

2013-04-22T14:42:48Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

Speaking in class this week will be several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Privacy

2013-04-22T14:42:41Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

We are joined this week by several members of Berkman's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/youthandmedia Youth and Media Project], as well as our own TA [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/dobrien David O'Brien].

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

The Profitability of the Internet

2013-04-22T14:36:11Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

== Assignments ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment #4]] is due before class today. You can upload the assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Wikipedia, Dot-com bubble]

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html Chris Anderson, The Long Tail (''Wired'')]

* [http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/07/the_wrong_tale_.html Guy Kawasaki, The Wrong Tail: A Checklist for Long Tail Implementations]

* [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Kevin Kelly, Better than Free]

* [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Eric Von Hippel, ''Democratizing Innovation'' (Chapter 8)]

* [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120730infamous Digital Music News, The Most Infamous Music Infographic, Updated for 2012]

* [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Benjamin Wallace, The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin (''Wired'')]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506376/ivy-league-20-or-just-another-petscom/ Lee Gomes, Ivy League 2.0 or Just Another Pets.com? (''MIT Technology Review'')]

* [http://money.futureofmusic.org/ The Future of Music Coalition, Artist Revenue Streams] (peruse)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Assignments

2013-04-22T14:34:54Z

Asellars: /* Assignment 4: Rough Draft */

{{AssignmentCal}}
During the course of the semester, you will be responsible for the following assignments, tasks, and projects:

==Class Participation==

* [[Class Participation|General Class Participation]]: This obligation is ongoing.

* [[Class Participation|Comment/Critique of Rough Drafts]]: You do this as a response to one of the rough drafts put together by your colleagues in [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]].

==Group Work==
'''Students have the option of working in groups for Assignments 2-4 and the Final Project.''' Working in a group can be fun and productive and should enable the participants to take their topic farther than an individual. Students should also consider the time required to coordinate their activities and potential complications of group work. A majority of students in previous classes have had a good experience working in groups.

The maximum group size is three. Those that wish to work in a group will be responsible for forming and organizing the group by March 12 at the latest. For those that choose to work in a group, it is essential to come to a clear understanding within the group how the work will be shared. ''There is an additional class requirement for those that work in a group: each group must submit a statement that describes the contribution of each member of the group.''

'''Prospective groups should submit a short paragraph by March 12 explaining why a group approach to their proposed topic for the final project makes sense.'''

Looking to form a group or join a group? Need a partner? Go to the [[Group Project Page]].

==Assignments==

===Assignment 1: Wikipedia===
'''Due February 12'''

'''See full assignment details [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|here]]'''

For this assignment, you will investigate the rich social ecosystem and organizational structure that allows [http://en.wikipedia.com Wikipedia] to function. Specifically, you will explore some of the community policies that govern Wikipedia, and write a report on how these rules play out in practice, and whether they contribute to or inhibit collaboration on Wikipedia. More details on the assignment as well as the menu of rules to choose from, as well as a space for you to report your observations can be found on the [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]].

'''Submit your reports here: [[Assignment 1 Submissions]]'''

===Assignment 2: Prospectus===
'''Prospectus Due February 26, Comments on Prospectus Due March 5.'''

This assignment is in two parts, with the prospectus due before class on February 26th, and comments on the prospectuses of your peers due on March 5th.

For this assignment, you will choose a topic that will be later developed into your '''[[Final Project]]'''. You may '''[[Assignments#Group_Work|work in groups.]]'''
* Read the description of the final project on the [[Final Project]] page.
* Write a one page prospectus (no more than 400 words) of a topic you would like work on for your final project. Thinking of the big picture: write your research questions, prepare your potential arguments, and do a bit of research. Use links as appropriate.
* The goal is to '''identify a focused research question (or set of research questions)''' and to explain how you will answer these questions. What methodologies will you use or observable behaviors will you examine to address your topic? What case study/community will you use?
* If you are interested in pursuing a format other than a paper (see the [[Final Project]] page for more info), please mention this in your prospectus.

The purpose of the prospectus is to help you start thinking about your final project. Your proposal doesn't need to be a final product, and your topic may change, but putting in the time to develop an idea up front will help you as you work on your project later in the semester.

'''Submitting Your Prospectus'''
* When you have completed your proposal, upload your document as a .txt file (or related readable format, such as .rtf, .doc, and .odt) to the class Wiki using the ''Upload file'' link to the left. (Remember to write your name on your assignment and in the file name!)
* Write your name, the title of your project, and link to your document on the '''[[Assignment 2 Submissions]]''' page.

'''Submitting Your Comments'''
* Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded. Your comments should be made on the '''[[Assignment 2 Submissions]]''' page itself, and we ask that you give comments on at least three prospectuses. These comments can be reactions, feedback, thoughts, suggestions for further research, personal insights, or anything else that will help the student further his or her work. ''Please try to balance your comments across the submitted material so that each student receives a couple of comments.''
* ''Comments should be submitted by '''March 5th''''' so there remains enough time to incorporate them into project outlines. Remember to sign your comments so we can be sure to give you credit!

===Assignment 3: Project Outline===
'''Due March 26'''

Submit an outline (2-4 pages, double-spaced, including a list of related materials and sources) of your project along with a description of the methodological approach you will take for the project. If you are taking an empirical approach, describe how you will structure your observations and data gathering.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]]''', provided you have submitted a short paragraph to the instructors by March 12 explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.

'''Submit your outline and description here: [[Assignment 3 Submissions]]'''

===Assignment 4: Rough Draft===
'''This assignment was due on April 23. The deadline has been extended to April 30th.'''

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]]''', provided you have submitted a short paragraph to the instructors by March 12 explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.

This assignment will be to turn in a rough draft of your final, 8-10 page final project paper (or presentation equivalent). It will be a chance for us to give you some comments, and suggest some places to push your research project forward in the next few weeks. This should be a complete or near-complete version of your final project, so your work between now and the final deadline will principally be refining, editing, and adding further research to make a good paper even better.

'''Submit your rough draft here: [[Assignment 4 Submissions]]'''

We do not require it, but students in past years also participated in voluntary peer review. We have created a page for [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]] that allows you a forum to do so.

==Extra Credit==
'''Due May 7'''

'''Submit your extra credit/sign up for an in-class presentation here: [[Extra Credit Submissions]]'''

If you are interested, you may create an audiovisual work discussing and presenting your research to date OR present your final research paper in class. Those that submit a satisfactory piece will receive one extra point on their final assignment grade, which is graded on a five point scale.

The work could be an audio file (such as a podcast), a video, or an in-class presentation. You should aim for a length of 3-5 minutes (there is 7 minute maximum). Content and presentation are much more important than length (a compelling 2-minute audio interview would be great). These may be presented in class on May 14th.

Possible ideas for A/V works include:

*An audio podcast or video interview with someone doing influential work related to your project
*A video medley and/or remix
*A podcast show in which participants debate the topic
*A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Map mindmap] image that charts out a policy debate or domain
*A photo montage
*A short film
*A song or musical work drawing from various samples
*A song with lyrics
*A data visualization

You can upload your project [[Extra Credit Submissions|here]].

==Final Project==
'''Due May 14'''

*For details, see the [[Final Project]] page.

Assignment 4 Submissions

2013-04-22T14:34:14Z

Asellars:

{{AssignmentCal}}

'''The deadline for this assignment has been extended to April 30th before class.''' 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 name your file "wikiusername_Assignment4," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment4.doc."

'''Upload your rough draft here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

'''If you'd like peer feedback on an updated version of your rough draft, you can submit it here: [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]]'''

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment4.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. Please follow the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Project title:
*Link to rough draft: (add your link here)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submissions==

*Name or pseudonym: sridder
*Project title: Does Social Commerce Reduce Internet Commerce Fraud?
*Link to rough draft: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Steve_Ridder_Assignment_4.docx

[[User:Saridder|Saridder]] 20:25, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Privacy

2013-04-22T14:33:42Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 23'''

A persistent fear throughout all of the Internet’s operation is the Internet’s treatment of a person’s own privacy. We have a hard enough time defining the term, much less determining what role it should play in deciding the whos, whats, and hows of Internet governance. Nevertheless, the Internet’s present evolution indicates that unless we spend time contemplating the reinforcing privacy online it way succumb to the interests of profitability, online behavior regulation, cybersecurity, and law enforcement. Today’s class will set a framework for classifying privacy issues and explore how these issues play out in online spaces.

== Assignments ==

We have a granted a ''one week extension'' to the rough draft in light of last week's events. Please have those [[Assignment_4_Submissions|uploaded]] before class on April 30th.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888 Daniel Solove, ''Understanding Privacy'' (Chapter 1)]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/20 Jonathan Zittrain, ''The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It'' (Chapter 9)]

* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, ''Blown to Bits'' (Chapter 2)] (focus on pages 36-42: “Why We Lost Our Privacy, Or Gave it All Away”)

* [http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/11/01/parents-survey-coppa.html danah boyd, Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule]

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0'' (Chapter 7)] (read “Solutions” through “Rules to Enable Choice About Privacy”)

* [http://iheid.revues.org/321 Johannes Köppel, The International Dimension of the SWIFT Affair]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.access-controlled.net/wp-content/PDFs/chapter-3.pdf Hal Roberts and John Palfrey, The EU Data Retention Directive in an Era of Internet Surveillance]

* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship]

* [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch7.pdf Dan Solove, ''The Future of Reputation'' (Chapter 7)]

* [http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Chris Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight]

* [http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0610105v2.pdf Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov, Robust De-anonymization of Large Datasets (How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset) (''Arxiv'')]

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html?_r=0 Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know It (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Daniel Solove concisely and accurately summarized the areas of consensus with regards to the definition of privacy when he stated that it encompasses, "(among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations." He also went on to point out that, “Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be usefully addressed at all.” These two statements probably best summarize where current thought on privacy is at this moment in world history. He goes on to emphasize how important privacy is, "Thus privacy is a fundamental right, essential for freedom, democracy, psychological well-being, individuality, and creativity. It is proclaimed inviolable but decried as detrimental, antisocial, and even pathological."

I see less problems with the actual definition of the core values which comprise privacy and more issues with drawing the borders of where privacy begins and ends. It can (more or less) be defined as the individual having his or her behavior, personal information and life protected from disclosure to anyone whom they wish to not share such information. One solution is to go back to the old paradigm of the good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. With this mindset, I believe there would be a constant shift towards the eroding away at individual privacy for the benefit of society, either real or perceived. Therefore, one must seek a minimal set of privacy rights which can either never be infringed upon, or can only be infringed upon after some sort of mechanism for "due process" has been put in place and followed and properly justified.

There are some who are criticizing police for their recent cordoning off and going house-to-house and searching for one of the suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown Massachusetts. There are also those who believe, that while so many cameras in the city of Boston gave law enforcement an advantage in identifying the bombers, the sheer quantity of cameras allows the government too much power. I thought the crowd sourcing effort that the government used (posting pictures of who they strongly believed were involved in the bombing and then allowing the public to voluntarily come forward was an interesting and perhaps good example of a balance between privacy and security that can be struck in the future. With the popularity of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, such efforts have the potential to be very effective, although surely not without critics. Technology certainly makes the issue of privacy much more complicated. Data gathering via the internet, data mining tools and technologies, surveillance drones and public cameras all add further complications to the issue. [[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 20:22, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

****

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-10T14:01:18Z

Asellars: /* Links Shared in Adobe Connect Session */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://civic.mit.edu/users/msauter Molly Sauter], a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://gabriellacoleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Coleman-Phreaks-Hackers-Trolls.pdf Gabriella Coleman, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls: The Politics of Transgression and Spectacle (from ''The Social Media Reader'')]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]

* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)

:* Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDos#Distributed_attack here].

* [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes] (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-surrounding-zero-day-exploits-industry-spurs-calls-for-government-oversight/2012/09/01/46d664a6-edf7-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html James Ball, Secrecy Surrounding “Zero-Day Exploits” Industry Spurs Calls for Government Oversight]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated"] (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford-Style_debate#Oxford-Style_debate Oxford-style debate] with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)

* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]

* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from ''Too Much Information'')] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0 Nicole Perlroth, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links Shared in Adobe Connect Session===
Operation Payback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback

The MIT hacks gallery: http://hacks.mit.edu/

MIT Tetris Hack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIPUGO1iko

Steven Levy's Hackers: http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary/dp/1449388396

Captain Crunch Whistle Hack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper

Joe Engressia is the blind phreaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles

WarGames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

Able Archer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

White Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)

Black Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat_hacking#Black_hat

Grey Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat

Zero Day Exploit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

Google's Application to apply for an exploit bounty: http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/

Article about Chrome bounty: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9204882/Google_pays_record_bounty_for_Chrome_bug

National Vulnerability Database: http://nvd.nist.gov/

Cablegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

Tom Cruise video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

Operation Clambake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clambake

Hacker zines like 2600: http://www.papercutzinelibrary.org/wordpress/

Electronic Disturbance Theater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Disturbance_Theater

Ban on Guy Fawkes Mask: http://rt.com/news/bahrain-ban-mask-vendetta-478/

Operation Chanology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

Al Qassam attacking US banks: http://news.softpedia.com/news/al-Qassam-Cyber-Fighters-to-Resume-Attacks-Against-US-Banks-on-March-5-332647.shtml

Operation Ababil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ababil

***

This is for pure enjoyment, but fans of Molly's discussion on media portrayal of hackers will enjoy this article by [http://www.theonion.com/articles/fasttalking-computer-hacker-just-has-to-break-thro,32000/ The Onion]. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 10:00, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

*****

I was particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: ''the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.''

As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.

As defined on the Wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism], ''"Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics."'' One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, ''good'' is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?

The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?

I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Having been a student, practitioner as a criminal and Constitutional lawyer, a teacher, a journalism and most importantly an observer of government and political behavior along with these touching subjects of invasion of privacy, free speech, independence, communication, and what should be a global effort at cooperation for the advancement of the entire society, for over 50 years *yee gads, I must be old) I have seen government in action, in inaction and pretending it is in action. The latter is the rule, not the exception. Our elected officials and the real powers behind the throne, non-elected officials and lobbyists create a proverbial chicken coup run by the fox. The top echelon of elected officials are figureheads who revel in their fame, power and fortune, Whether it be going through the motions at airport security, or passing insignificant laws that are more bark than bite that they expertly market to create the impression of having meat behind them they exist in their ivory towers. The problem in this country particularly is that most of us are fat cats living a lifestyle greater than an society before and really do not want to upset the real status quo. So they sit back for the most part and not rock the boat. The Dutch 350 years ago could not care if Holland or England was in power, so long as they were left alone to do their business. In Sicily where my ancestors lived the so-called "Mafia" operated in a way much like the American Dutch, but of course in a much more violent and way to control others. Sicily has been "governed" due to its strategic location along the first major trade routes by virtually every seagoing power of the last two millenniums, but early in the 2nd A.D. the Mafia was formed and since until recent attacks by the government as their power lessened has existed as the real governing body.

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Rules that the Supreme Court regarding writing computer code and whether it is protected under a free speech clause is interesting, but I believe for the most part addressed under the Department of Justice Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which deliniates in detail the federal crimes that an individual or group may commit, for example, by performing acts of trespassing on other peoples' or organizations computers by "exceeding authorized access" and taking National Security information. In my mind, if and individual or group is proven to show that they create a mechanical device for the purpose of terrorism, accessing National Security information, or in anyway creating code to exceed access for a non-authorized user, that is very obviously a federal crime. When one wishes to create that which defends such information protected by National Security acts, then that group or individual can do it in an authorized area with an authorized group, such as the military or a government authorized facility. It is difficult to overemphasize how seriously the US and other governments take hacking. Mostly it is viewed as organized crime at the lowest level if it does not cross international borders, terrorism if it does. One has to bring up humorously the movie Hackers with Angelina Jolie. Even though it is over 20 years old, it most accurately describes what is happening today in a prophetic manner. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:58, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Discussion: Last week I succeeded at programming the wiki to not include my name when I signed it, as required; this week I have a discussion about radicalism and hackers and the knowledge of a cat. So in reviewing the substance of this assignment I have realized that the understanding on the wall of this page is the problem not the other way around. Therefore this is not the conclusion,. A bit of haste will make anyone impuctual as I have just demonstrate. Now I will discuss the necessity for review: Jonathan Zittrian is not a type of ready made rice snack in the grocer aisle or the Webster of deconstructivist lexicography, and memory loss, he was pretending to be Dave Navarro not Jimmy Fallon. I have a cat named Nipper, she loved the lecture about internet attacks. If anyone of you think this is Wall Street, think again! This is how my cat thinks. So I guess that the problem is not the computer, but, merely the author of the program and this association is FALSE. So basically, I am hot and ready for a frozen pizza but I cannot remember the brand. I guess my computer has a memory problem. That is my goal as I continue on the last assignment (which I received a 1 on, if people missed that comment [last week]).[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

These articles were absolutely fascinating! I was particularly intrigued by the "Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls" chapter, especially the theatrical aspect of modern internet hacking. While hackers were once limited to the 256 character options of ASCII text available on usenet and .alt boards, modern multimedia possibilities can arouse more shock value, such as the flying phallus prank in Second Life. However, disguised behind elaborate digital costumes, the authentic human voice and political intention is lost. Not only has the increasing unhuman-ness of internet technology impacted the real-life, humanitarian aims of hackers, but also as Gabriella Coleman articulates, "Aesthetic hyperbole has made it difficult to parse out truth from lie," resulting in "cultural obfuscation." She later asserts that many breeds of hackers use the internet as a stage to parody real life. This strategy often seems at odds with producing legitimate social change or reformation of systems that hackers attack. For instance, trolls who employ racist and sexist language to mock and exploit chauvinistic real world structures are generally met with three types of responses. 1. They are flamed, criticized, or exiled for their behavior. 2. Their behavior approves of others to express similarly bigoted language and opinions. 3. Their trolling is met with a disaffected awareness that they are indeed trolls, and other users are not to pay them attention. This public awareness of trolls trolling grants internet communities a free pass to write off real racism that may manifest. As these trolls wrap legitimate social issues in absurdism/idiotism, the internet public feels less threatened by these hateful contributions and more neglectful of the power structures that such bigotry reaffirms, even in an anonymous online venue. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 16:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

The material this week was quite eye opening. I am still somewhat amazed at how 'virtual' seems to be the buzz word for bytes and bites... This myriad of information is anything but virtual...it's not going away...it's coded by the billions upon billions of 0,1s ... And if information is hanging out there that becomes accessible to folks by breaking in, how is that any different than them picking the lock on your front door and stealing your grandmother's secret recipe of spaghetti sauce. I was amazed at the debate and how anyone couldn't think there wasn't a potential threat. This cyber world Is a thief's utopia.... [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 9 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

****

This week's readings were again, very interesting. I think they have been getting better as the course goes on.

Some thoughts on the readings:

I was amused by the apparently contradictory description of hackers in the Coleman article which read: "...hackers tend to uphold a value for freedom, privacy and access..." I could not help but wonder how one can value both privacy and access, when taken to the extremes that those that are labeled "hackers" today take them. For example, if you are willing to obtain unauthorized access to a system/database and extract someone else's private information only to make it public for the purpose of causing them embarrassment or financial damage, then you obviously support and extreme notion of access but do not respect privacy.

That one criticism of Coleman aside, his article was absolutely outstanding. It was a very accurate trip down memory lane for me - I was around and enjoying the age of dial-up modems, electronic bulletit board systems including pirate boards and what he deems as "bitch boards" as well as the early (1980's) days of hacking, phreaking and dial-up (300 baud!) modems. He did a great job of providing a brief overview of the history of hacking and the various pranks and shenanigans (e.g. trolling) that go on online.

The new analytical model proposed by Molly Sauter was an interesting concept. Her model considers three points of analysis: motivations and intended effects, actual effects and technologies used. I can see some instances where motivations and intentions might be less relevant as even if an attack were to result in effects more significant than what was intended, they are still presumably caused by the hackers. Just the same, the cat pictures in her presentation rule!!

I'd be interested in understanding Molly's definition of a "reasonable act of civil protest" because she seemed to imply that Operation Assange which had (her words) "A secondary goal was to cause financial damage and embarrassment to the corporations targeted." was an ethical and reasonable act. Her analysis was valuable in that it sheds light on how this community thinks. I'm looking forward to hearing her speak tonight.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

I always read media articles outlining hacking attacks eminating from China with a grain of salt, these media stories are rolled out once a week in the press but we never hear reciprocal stories about hacking perpetrated by the US government on other countries. Nicole Perlroth’s, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months, would seem to be another in a long line of articles casting aspersion’s on the Chinese government, without stopping to investigate whether the US acts in kind. Even when there is an odd story about US hacking attacks, the attacks are always framed positively, such as when the US and Israel hacked the Iranian nuclear weapons. We don’t hear about all the other types of espionage the US government carries out, unless it is against its own citizens (I recall reading a story about massive servers in California essentially running algorithms on hugh swathes of the internet to detect terrorist comments). Perhaps the reason China doesn’t want its citizens to be using google, facebook, and other American internet behemoths is because it doesn’t want all sorts of Chinese information to be passing through servers easily accessible to the US government. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:36, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-10T14:01:10Z

Asellars: /* Links Shared in Adobe Connect Session */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://civic.mit.edu/users/msauter Molly Sauter], a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://gabriellacoleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Coleman-Phreaks-Hackers-Trolls.pdf Gabriella Coleman, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls: The Politics of Transgression and Spectacle (from ''The Social Media Reader'')]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]

* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)

:* Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDos#Distributed_attack here].

* [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes] (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-surrounding-zero-day-exploits-industry-spurs-calls-for-government-oversight/2012/09/01/46d664a6-edf7-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html James Ball, Secrecy Surrounding “Zero-Day Exploits” Industry Spurs Calls for Government Oversight]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated"] (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford-Style_debate#Oxford-Style_debate Oxford-style debate] with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)

* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]

* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from ''Too Much Information'')] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0 Nicole Perlroth, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links Shared in Adobe Connect Session===
Operation Payback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback

The MIT hacks gallery: http://hacks.mit.edu/

MIT Tetris Hack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIPUGO1iko

Steven Levy's Hackers: http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary/dp/1449388396

Captain Crunch Whistle Hack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper

Joe Engressia is the blind phreaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles

WarGames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

Able Archer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

White Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)

Black Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat_hacking#Black_hat

Grey Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat

Zero Day Exploit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

Google's Application to apply for an exploit bounty: http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/

Article about Chrome bounty: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9204882/Google_pays_record_bounty_for_Chrome_bug

National Vulnerability Database: http://nvd.nist.gov/

Cablegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

Tom Cruise video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

Operation Clambake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clambake

Hacker zines like 2600: http://www.papercutzinelibrary.org/wordpress/

Electronic Disturbance Theater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Disturbance_Theater

Ban on Guy Fawkes Mask: http://rt.com/news/bahrain-ban-mask-vendetta-478/

Operation Chanology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

Al Qassam attacking US banks: http://news.softpedia.com/news/al-Qassam-Cyber-Fighters-to-Resume-Attacks-Against-US-Banks-on-March-5-332647.shtml

Operation Ababil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ababil

* * *

This is for pure enjoyment, but fans of Molly's discussion on media portrayal of hackers will enjoy this article by [http://www.theonion.com/articles/fasttalking-computer-hacker-just-has-to-break-thro,32000/ The Onion]. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 10:00, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

*****

I was particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: ''the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.''

As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.

As defined on the Wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism], ''"Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics."'' One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, ''good'' is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?

The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?

I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Having been a student, practitioner as a criminal and Constitutional lawyer, a teacher, a journalism and most importantly an observer of government and political behavior along with these touching subjects of invasion of privacy, free speech, independence, communication, and what should be a global effort at cooperation for the advancement of the entire society, for over 50 years *yee gads, I must be old) I have seen government in action, in inaction and pretending it is in action. The latter is the rule, not the exception. Our elected officials and the real powers behind the throne, non-elected officials and lobbyists create a proverbial chicken coup run by the fox. The top echelon of elected officials are figureheads who revel in their fame, power and fortune, Whether it be going through the motions at airport security, or passing insignificant laws that are more bark than bite that they expertly market to create the impression of having meat behind them they exist in their ivory towers. The problem in this country particularly is that most of us are fat cats living a lifestyle greater than an society before and really do not want to upset the real status quo. So they sit back for the most part and not rock the boat. The Dutch 350 years ago could not care if Holland or England was in power, so long as they were left alone to do their business. In Sicily where my ancestors lived the so-called "Mafia" operated in a way much like the American Dutch, but of course in a much more violent and way to control others. Sicily has been "governed" due to its strategic location along the first major trade routes by virtually every seagoing power of the last two millenniums, but early in the 2nd A.D. the Mafia was formed and since until recent attacks by the government as their power lessened has existed as the real governing body.

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Rules that the Supreme Court regarding writing computer code and whether it is protected under a free speech clause is interesting, but I believe for the most part addressed under the Department of Justice Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which deliniates in detail the federal crimes that an individual or group may commit, for example, by performing acts of trespassing on other peoples' or organizations computers by "exceeding authorized access" and taking National Security information. In my mind, if and individual or group is proven to show that they create a mechanical device for the purpose of terrorism, accessing National Security information, or in anyway creating code to exceed access for a non-authorized user, that is very obviously a federal crime. When one wishes to create that which defends such information protected by National Security acts, then that group or individual can do it in an authorized area with an authorized group, such as the military or a government authorized facility. It is difficult to overemphasize how seriously the US and other governments take hacking. Mostly it is viewed as organized crime at the lowest level if it does not cross international borders, terrorism if it does. One has to bring up humorously the movie Hackers with Angelina Jolie. Even though it is over 20 years old, it most accurately describes what is happening today in a prophetic manner. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:58, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Discussion: Last week I succeeded at programming the wiki to not include my name when I signed it, as required; this week I have a discussion about radicalism and hackers and the knowledge of a cat. So in reviewing the substance of this assignment I have realized that the understanding on the wall of this page is the problem not the other way around. Therefore this is not the conclusion,. A bit of haste will make anyone impuctual as I have just demonstrate. Now I will discuss the necessity for review: Jonathan Zittrian is not a type of ready made rice snack in the grocer aisle or the Webster of deconstructivist lexicography, and memory loss, he was pretending to be Dave Navarro not Jimmy Fallon. I have a cat named Nipper, she loved the lecture about internet attacks. If anyone of you think this is Wall Street, think again! This is how my cat thinks. So I guess that the problem is not the computer, but, merely the author of the program and this association is FALSE. So basically, I am hot and ready for a frozen pizza but I cannot remember the brand. I guess my computer has a memory problem. That is my goal as I continue on the last assignment (which I received a 1 on, if people missed that comment [last week]).[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

These articles were absolutely fascinating! I was particularly intrigued by the "Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls" chapter, especially the theatrical aspect of modern internet hacking. While hackers were once limited to the 256 character options of ASCII text available on usenet and .alt boards, modern multimedia possibilities can arouse more shock value, such as the flying phallus prank in Second Life. However, disguised behind elaborate digital costumes, the authentic human voice and political intention is lost. Not only has the increasing unhuman-ness of internet technology impacted the real-life, humanitarian aims of hackers, but also as Gabriella Coleman articulates, "Aesthetic hyperbole has made it difficult to parse out truth from lie," resulting in "cultural obfuscation." She later asserts that many breeds of hackers use the internet as a stage to parody real life. This strategy often seems at odds with producing legitimate social change or reformation of systems that hackers attack. For instance, trolls who employ racist and sexist language to mock and exploit chauvinistic real world structures are generally met with three types of responses. 1. They are flamed, criticized, or exiled for their behavior. 2. Their behavior approves of others to express similarly bigoted language and opinions. 3. Their trolling is met with a disaffected awareness that they are indeed trolls, and other users are not to pay them attention. This public awareness of trolls trolling grants internet communities a free pass to write off real racism that may manifest. As these trolls wrap legitimate social issues in absurdism/idiotism, the internet public feels less threatened by these hateful contributions and more neglectful of the power structures that such bigotry reaffirms, even in an anonymous online venue. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 16:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

The material this week was quite eye opening. I am still somewhat amazed at how 'virtual' seems to be the buzz word for bytes and bites... This myriad of information is anything but virtual...it's not going away...it's coded by the billions upon billions of 0,1s ... And if information is hanging out there that becomes accessible to folks by breaking in, how is that any different than them picking the lock on your front door and stealing your grandmother's secret recipe of spaghetti sauce. I was amazed at the debate and how anyone couldn't think there wasn't a potential threat. This cyber world Is a thief's utopia.... [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 9 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

****

This week's readings were again, very interesting. I think they have been getting better as the course goes on.

Some thoughts on the readings:

I was amused by the apparently contradictory description of hackers in the Coleman article which read: "...hackers tend to uphold a value for freedom, privacy and access..." I could not help but wonder how one can value both privacy and access, when taken to the extremes that those that are labeled "hackers" today take them. For example, if you are willing to obtain unauthorized access to a system/database and extract someone else's private information only to make it public for the purpose of causing them embarrassment or financial damage, then you obviously support and extreme notion of access but do not respect privacy.

That one criticism of Coleman aside, his article was absolutely outstanding. It was a very accurate trip down memory lane for me - I was around and enjoying the age of dial-up modems, electronic bulletit board systems including pirate boards and what he deems as "bitch boards" as well as the early (1980's) days of hacking, phreaking and dial-up (300 baud!) modems. He did a great job of providing a brief overview of the history of hacking and the various pranks and shenanigans (e.g. trolling) that go on online.

The new analytical model proposed by Molly Sauter was an interesting concept. Her model considers three points of analysis: motivations and intended effects, actual effects and technologies used. I can see some instances where motivations and intentions might be less relevant as even if an attack were to result in effects more significant than what was intended, they are still presumably caused by the hackers. Just the same, the cat pictures in her presentation rule!!

I'd be interested in understanding Molly's definition of a "reasonable act of civil protest" because she seemed to imply that Operation Assange which had (her words) "A secondary goal was to cause financial damage and embarrassment to the corporations targeted." was an ethical and reasonable act. Her analysis was valuable in that it sheds light on how this community thinks. I'm looking forward to hearing her speak tonight.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

I always read media articles outlining hacking attacks eminating from China with a grain of salt, these media stories are rolled out once a week in the press but we never hear reciprocal stories about hacking perpetrated by the US government on other countries. Nicole Perlroth’s, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months, would seem to be another in a long line of articles casting aspersion’s on the Chinese government, without stopping to investigate whether the US acts in kind. Even when there is an odd story about US hacking attacks, the attacks are always framed positively, such as when the US and Israel hacked the Iranian nuclear weapons. We don’t hear about all the other types of espionage the US government carries out, unless it is against its own citizens (I recall reading a story about massive servers in California essentially running algorithms on hugh swathes of the internet to detect terrorist comments). Perhaps the reason China doesn’t want its citizens to be using google, facebook, and other American internet behemoths is because it doesn’t want all sorts of Chinese information to be passing through servers easily accessible to the US government. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:36, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-10T14:00:49Z

Asellars: /* Links */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 9'''

Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.

Our guest speaker this week will be [http://civic.mit.edu/users/msauter Molly Sauter], a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://gabriellacoleman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Coleman-Phreaks-Hackers-Trolls.pdf Gabriella Coleman, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls: The Politics of Transgression and Spectacle (from ''The Social Media Reader'')]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback Wikipedia, Operation Payback]

* [http://vimeo.com/46450688 Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail] (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)

:* Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDos#Distributed_attack here].

* [http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes] (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil Wikipedia, Operation Sundevil]

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-surrounding-zero-day-exploits-industry-spurs-calls-for-government-oversight/2012/09/01/46d664a6-edf7-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html James Ball, Secrecy Surrounding “Zero-Day Exploits” Industry Spurs Calls for Government Oversight]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/576-the-cyber-war-threat-has-been-grossly-exaggerated Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated"] (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford-Style_debate#Oxford-Style_debate Oxford-style debate] with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)

* [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-use-influence-to-halt-operation-payback-101120/ TorrentFreak, Pirate Parties Use Influence to Halt Anonymous’ Operation Payback]

* [https://soundcloud.com/bwalker/doing-it-for-the-lulz Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from ''Too Much Information'')] (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2012/10/soghoian Christopher Soghoian, The Growing Trade in Software Security Exploits]

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?_r=0 Nicole Perlroth, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months (''New York Times'')]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links Shared in Adobe Connect Session===
Operation Payback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback

The MIT hacks gallery: http://hacks.mit.edu/

MIT Tetris Hack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIPUGO1iko

Steven Levy's Hackers: http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary/dp/1449388396

Captain Crunch Whistle Hack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper

Joe Engressia is the blind phreaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joybubbles

WarGames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

Able Archer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

White Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)

Black Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hat_hacking#Black_hat

Grey Hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat

Zero Day Exploit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack

Google's Application to apply for an exploit bounty: http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/

Article about Chrome bounty: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9204882/Google_pays_record_bounty_for_Chrome_bug

National Vulnerability Database: http://nvd.nist.gov/

Cablegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

Tom Cruise video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

Operation Clambake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clambake

Hacker zines like 2600: http://www.papercutzinelibrary.org/wordpress/

Electronic Disturbance Theater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Disturbance_Theater

Ban on Guy Fawkes Mask: http://rt.com/news/bahrain-ban-mask-vendetta-478/

Operation Chanology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

Al Qassam attacking US banks: http://news.softpedia.com/news/al-Qassam-Cyber-Fighters-to-Resume-Attacks-Against-US-Banks-on-March-5-332647.shtml

Operation Ababil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ababil

This is for pure enjoyment, but fans of Molly's discussion on media portrayal of hackers will enjoy this article by [http://www.theonion.com/articles/fasttalking-computer-hacker-just-has-to-break-thro,32000/ The Onion]. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 10:00, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

*****

I was particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: ''the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.''

As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.

As defined on the Wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism], ''"Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics."'' One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, ''good'' is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?

The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?

I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Having been a student, practitioner as a criminal and Constitutional lawyer, a teacher, a journalism and most importantly an observer of government and political behavior along with these touching subjects of invasion of privacy, free speech, independence, communication, and what should be a global effort at cooperation for the advancement of the entire society, for over 50 years *yee gads, I must be old) I have seen government in action, in inaction and pretending it is in action. The latter is the rule, not the exception. Our elected officials and the real powers behind the throne, non-elected officials and lobbyists create a proverbial chicken coup run by the fox. The top echelon of elected officials are figureheads who revel in their fame, power and fortune, Whether it be going through the motions at airport security, or passing insignificant laws that are more bark than bite that they expertly market to create the impression of having meat behind them they exist in their ivory towers. The problem in this country particularly is that most of us are fat cats living a lifestyle greater than an society before and really do not want to upset the real status quo. So they sit back for the most part and not rock the boat. The Dutch 350 years ago could not care if Holland or England was in power, so long as they were left alone to do their business. In Sicily where my ancestors lived the so-called "Mafia" operated in a way much like the American Dutch, but of course in a much more violent and way to control others. Sicily has been "governed" due to its strategic location along the first major trade routes by virtually every seagoing power of the last two millenniums, but early in the 2nd A.D. the Mafia was formed and since until recent attacks by the government as their power lessened has existed as the real governing body.

What does this all have to do with the Internet and government control. I will tell you, it is a similar scenario, a similar mathematical formula in which the power is in the people, but until the people stop being conned they will never take it. Now, I am not and hope I do not sound like a Communist by our principals claims that we are a country, "By and for the People," and our only hope and salvation as a society is to wake up and become active participants and uncover the charades we are subject to by those we elect who under the color of authority are paper pushers.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 12:24, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

In my view, major corporations and government security departments have acknowledged that hacker break-ins are out of control within the Internet arena. Some companies are too fearful to join networks due to diverse software programs that could develop ample growing problems. Computer security in our days, is portrayed within usage of difficult passcode, however, is it enough? Hackers seem to carry the responsibility of security break-in, however are they truly liable for company’s loss? As clients demand security of their assets, the vulnerability of security breach highlights that it could not be protected eternally. Ample amount of money is spent on protecting devices that target the hackers, however do these systems support this protection, and why it is still an issue? With the advent of modern law, the characteristics of this issue seem to lack a common ground, which hackers and diverse security programs rely upon. And what are the rights of the government to seize documents and computer ware in case of the hacking incident? The responsibilities of system operators seem to be quite inadequate in comparison to a “true” right for protection. Current law acknowledges that a new threat is emerging where computer “criminals” would potentially be capable of industrial espionage and damaging infrastructures. How could the current law be altered or improved upon these various hacking frameworks? And what would be considered a freedom of information in this matter? How could the unauthorized theft be the primary focus of diverse corporation? And how vulnerability of various security measures could prevent drastic corporate or governmental invasions?
[[User:User777|user777]] 12:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Rules that the Supreme Court regarding writing computer code and whether it is protected under a free speech clause is interesting, but I believe for the most part addressed under the Department of Justice Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which deliniates in detail the federal crimes that an individual or group may commit, for example, by performing acts of trespassing on other peoples' or organizations computers by "exceeding authorized access" and taking National Security information. In my mind, if and individual or group is proven to show that they create a mechanical device for the purpose of terrorism, accessing National Security information, or in anyway creating code to exceed access for a non-authorized user, that is very obviously a federal crime. When one wishes to create that which defends such information protected by National Security acts, then that group or individual can do it in an authorized area with an authorized group, such as the military or a government authorized facility. It is difficult to overemphasize how seriously the US and other governments take hacking. Mostly it is viewed as organized crime at the lowest level if it does not cross international borders, terrorism if it does. One has to bring up humorously the movie Hackers with Angelina Jolie. Even though it is over 20 years old, it most accurately describes what is happening today in a prophetic manner. [[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:58, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Discussion: Last week I succeeded at programming the wiki to not include my name when I signed it, as required; this week I have a discussion about radicalism and hackers and the knowledge of a cat. So in reviewing the substance of this assignment I have realized that the understanding on the wall of this page is the problem not the other way around. Therefore this is not the conclusion,. A bit of haste will make anyone impuctual as I have just demonstrate. Now I will discuss the necessity for review: Jonathan Zittrian is not a type of ready made rice snack in the grocer aisle or the Webster of deconstructivist lexicography, and memory loss, he was pretending to be Dave Navarro not Jimmy Fallon. I have a cat named Nipper, she loved the lecture about internet attacks. If anyone of you think this is Wall Street, think again! This is how my cat thinks. So I guess that the problem is not the computer, but, merely the author of the program and this association is FALSE. So basically, I am hot and ready for a frozen pizza but I cannot remember the brand. I guess my computer has a memory problem. That is my goal as I continue on the last assignment (which I received a 1 on, if people missed that comment [last week]).[[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 13:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

These articles were absolutely fascinating! I was particularly intrigued by the "Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls" chapter, especially the theatrical aspect of modern internet hacking. While hackers were once limited to the 256 character options of ASCII text available on usenet and .alt boards, modern multimedia possibilities can arouse more shock value, such as the flying phallus prank in Second Life. However, disguised behind elaborate digital costumes, the authentic human voice and political intention is lost. Not only has the increasing unhuman-ness of internet technology impacted the real-life, humanitarian aims of hackers, but also as Gabriella Coleman articulates, "Aesthetic hyperbole has made it difficult to parse out truth from lie," resulting in "cultural obfuscation." She later asserts that many breeds of hackers use the internet as a stage to parody real life. This strategy often seems at odds with producing legitimate social change or reformation of systems that hackers attack. For instance, trolls who employ racist and sexist language to mock and exploit chauvinistic real world structures are generally met with three types of responses. 1. They are flamed, criticized, or exiled for their behavior. 2. Their behavior approves of others to express similarly bigoted language and opinions. 3. Their trolling is met with a disaffected awareness that they are indeed trolls, and other users are not to pay them attention. This public awareness of trolls trolling grants internet communities a free pass to write off real racism that may manifest. As these trolls wrap legitimate social issues in absurdism/idiotism, the internet public feels less threatened by these hateful contributions and more neglectful of the power structures that such bigotry reaffirms, even in an anonymous online venue. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 16:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

The material this week was quite eye opening. I am still somewhat amazed at how 'virtual' seems to be the buzz word for bytes and bites... This myriad of information is anything but virtual...it's not going away...it's coded by the billions upon billions of 0,1s ... And if information is hanging out there that becomes accessible to folks by breaking in, how is that any different than them picking the lock on your front door and stealing your grandmother's secret recipe of spaghetti sauce. I was amazed at the debate and how anyone couldn't think there wasn't a potential threat. This cyber world Is a thief's utopia.... [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 17:15, 9 April 2013 (EDT)Caroline

****

This week's readings were again, very interesting. I think they have been getting better as the course goes on.

Some thoughts on the readings:

I was amused by the apparently contradictory description of hackers in the Coleman article which read: "...hackers tend to uphold a value for freedom, privacy and access..." I could not help but wonder how one can value both privacy and access, when taken to the extremes that those that are labeled "hackers" today take them. For example, if you are willing to obtain unauthorized access to a system/database and extract someone else's private information only to make it public for the purpose of causing them embarrassment or financial damage, then you obviously support and extreme notion of access but do not respect privacy.

That one criticism of Coleman aside, his article was absolutely outstanding. It was a very accurate trip down memory lane for me - I was around and enjoying the age of dial-up modems, electronic bulletit board systems including pirate boards and what he deems as "bitch boards" as well as the early (1980's) days of hacking, phreaking and dial-up (300 baud!) modems. He did a great job of providing a brief overview of the history of hacking and the various pranks and shenanigans (e.g. trolling) that go on online.

The new analytical model proposed by Molly Sauter was an interesting concept. Her model considers three points of analysis: motivations and intended effects, actual effects and technologies used. I can see some instances where motivations and intentions might be less relevant as even if an attack were to result in effects more significant than what was intended, they are still presumably caused by the hackers. Just the same, the cat pictures in her presentation rule!!

I'd be interested in understanding Molly's definition of a "reasonable act of civil protest" because she seemed to imply that Operation Assange which had (her words) "A secondary goal was to cause financial damage and embarrassment to the corporations targeted." was an ethical and reasonable act. Her analysis was valuable in that it sheds light on how this community thinks. I'm looking forward to hearing her speak tonight.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 17:26, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

I always read media articles outlining hacking attacks eminating from China with a grain of salt, these media stories are rolled out once a week in the press but we never hear reciprocal stories about hacking perpetrated by the US government on other countries. Nicole Perlroth’s, Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months, would seem to be another in a long line of articles casting aspersion’s on the Chinese government, without stopping to investigate whether the US acts in kind. Even when there is an odd story about US hacking attacks, the attacks are always framed positively, such as when the US and Israel hacked the Iranian nuclear weapons. We don’t hear about all the other types of espionage the US government carries out, unless it is against its own citizens (I recall reading a story about massive servers in California essentially running algorithms on hugh swathes of the internet to detect terrorist comments). Perhaps the reason China doesn’t want its citizens to be using google, facebook, and other American internet behemoths is because it doesn’t want all sorts of Chinese information to be passing through servers easily accessible to the US government. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 17:36, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

*****

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-07T21:00:44Z

Asellars: /* Readings */

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-07T20:32:42Z

Asellars: /* Readings */

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-07T20:32:32Z

Asellars: /* Readings */

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-05T17:03:56Z

Asellars: /* Optional Readings */

Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism

2013-04-05T17:03:12Z

Asellars: /* Optional Readings */

Powerpoint Slides from Class

2013-03-26T21:15:50Z

Asellars:

5 Feb 2013 - [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/IS2013_Class_2_Slides.pdf Paradigms for Studying the Internet]

19 Feb 2013 - [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:IS2013_-_Whose_Values.pdf Whose Values?]

26 Feb 2013 - [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-02-26-Regulating_Speech_Online.pdf Regulating Speech Online]

5 Mar 2013 - [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Copyright, Part I]

26 Mar 2013 - [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-26-Collective_Action.pdf Collective Action, Politics, and Protests]

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T21:14:59Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.

We will be joined in the beginning of class by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/oodewale Oluwaseun "Egghead" Odewale], a fellow at the Berkman Center and an expert on West African elections and civil affairs.

'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-26-Collective_Action.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.

Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.

First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine. We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean. This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other.

The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different. Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.

Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have. We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.

The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late. We need a happy medium. As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012. Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media. In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology. In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!

To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:

''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side. [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''

This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective. How much does a "click" really matter? As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse. However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road. In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens. The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight. This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action.

''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''

Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media. Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities. Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time. As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media. Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives? Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground?

An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers). Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online. Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness. Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword. It is sometimes a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general. Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography. I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.

This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame.
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined. With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication. Asking ourselves what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while. Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.

However the construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.

The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato) Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective, and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda, became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement .... the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

*****

The lecture about the evolution of the Internet in contrast with SOPA and PIPA was quite interesting to listen. The PIPA act is viewed as a grant to the social and political reforms that enables the facilitation of piracy. Although many are opposed to both SOPA and PIPA Act, there is ample benefit that implements the decrease of the piracy rate in the United States along with the careful consideration of copyright effect. In my view, SOPA and PIPA would make diverse websites more inaccessible, which would prevent users for exercising their freedom of speech. Social problems would ultimately cost millions of dollars to support new technologies. These bills do portray an infringing benefit for copyright and pirated material that could distress the entertainment industry within the www. Most Internet users enjoy the freedom to surf, post, and explore the Internet, however online piracy is a real problem that Congress sees it as an issue. The debate about censorship involves diverse major bills that are designed to stop the copyright and piracy, but is it enough? Ample companies seek protection rights to their product or good, how limited the implication of censorship could come along? The vast majority of users seem to react on serious revisions to protect our rights as citizens, which will introduce a new prospective premise within the usage on free knowledge, and “limited” expression of speech. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

Today the readings were fabulous; if I do say so myself. I thought about a lot. This deepest thoughts I had were about the power of the doctoral degree. I just realized that there is always competition and that a doctoral degree makes a person better to socialize with others of the same dignity.

Now, with this having been said, read the following:

"There was an apple that was a mango, it said to a comma, "Where is your period?". The comma said, that period is not required, because we are all useful"

- the previous quotation is not the opinion of this author, yet is used to illustrate nothing, since it is a translation of thought, to media, then reanalyzed by a different person's virtual "avatar", if we may.

Does this require a doctorate of English? Is computer language actually censored, or is it sentured? This type of problem, the articles discussed, but the metaphysics of this diaspora is not implicitly "bit for bit".

I am excited for lecture today, and above all, and not a supremacist. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:55, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

****

It was enjoyable listening/watching Yochai Benkler describe how all the smaller efforts to stop SOPA, while not all duplicate of each other, managed to support each other and created a synergistic effect that had an impact on public policy and public perception of that policy. However, I am still struggling a bit to understand the ultimate goal of Benkler and those who share his point of view. In terms of what he (and similar activists) are trying to achieve, where is the demarcation line between people's ability to speak and other's ability to choose to ignore or listen to them? Benkler referenced Wikipedia and the question they posted on their site: "Imagine a world without free knowledge." In terms of knowledge, what exactly is free and what can be protected and retained as private? Is the end state where everyone has absolutely equal voices, nobody with a greater voice than another? At the end of his talk, Nemkler mentions a large, diverse group of players all developing individual efforts which collectively to prevent their message from being shut down "by those with the money"? Is he simply attempting to restore some semblance of balance between the voices of those with money and the voices of those with little money? I can't seem to put my finger on any clear line to get a better understanding of what the goal is.

While I do remember the Kony uproar when it happened, the readings and video provided more detail and context. While it obviously would have been satisfying to see something tangible come from the effort to bring attention to him, it appears that, unlike the successful anti-SOPA effort, sometimes these crowdsourced, online efforts allow for many efforts to augment each other and create a synergistic effect and other times they can compete with each other and even become adversarial in their relationships.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 13:32, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

****
The articles discussing techniques of how the Kony online video made so many hits with YouTube and Twitter in such a short period of time were facinating. The first thing that came to mind was Tweetbombing, and to me the success of the Kony video was that it excelled in production professionalism, and the producers were able to latch on to the most popular celebrities in the Twitterverse such as Oprah, Rihanna, and Justin Timberlake. Support of those whom are popular among the young and technology savvy in 'pop'culture means immediate credibility to at least get a look at a product. The Kony video seemed to really be a first mover for using 21st century promotion tactics leveraging technology able to be accessed by the majority of the worlds literate population. Now those who watch music videos on YouTube and read tweets from celebrities had something of substance to grab hold of and simply re-tweet or post to their YouTube account,Like, and create a perfect storm of publicity in a very short time period. Understanding that a popular video on YouTube will show up as a recommended video on the home page helped tremendously. I do not know if the Kony producers were able to pay to promote their video, or get YouTube or Twitter to promote the video as a documentary charity or non-profit, but this would have also helped. Some of the celebrities pay to have their accounts on Twitter and or YouTube artificially promoted, and when Kony was endorsed by them on social media, this pay for promotion scheme worked to their advantage. The content itself is shocking, and simply promoting a bad video would not account for all of the views and re-Tweets. Human rights activism has come of age on the new social media, and the Kony video is a fantastic example of how that is happening. Some critics had said that it did not do much to combat child soldiers in general, but I disagree. The topic is now part of the global discussion of whether the United Nations and related international organizations may back loans for individual countries, and light shed on the subject put pressure on those using child soliders that they may someday be the next Kony video with them in the starring role. Bravo, producers of Kony2012.
Daniel Cameron Morris[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:59, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
````
*****

@ZakPaster: Like many, I criticized the Kony2012 video for oversimplifying and emotionally manipulating viewers. I didn't like how the video ignored the voice of the Ugandan people, how it portrayed them as helpless, and how it aimed to "make Kony famous" by making him a celebrity. I would say after returning to these articles, I am a bit more conflicted, mainly because I am unsure about the value of "symbolic power." Tufekci writes, "today’s 'meaningless click' is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action." But as we see from Lotan, Invisible Children spent extensive resources into creating pre-existing networks that fueled the spread of the Kony message. An awareness campaign requires a built in infrastructure. And that kind of campaign costs money. In this case it worked. But while people may know who Kony is, what good is that awareness to the ultimate cause? Are we better off now than before?

If I'm donating to a cause in Africa, I would prefer the funds be used where it is most helpful (like on the ground in Africa or supporting research in the field) and not towards gaining public awareness. Because what good does that awareness and attention do, really? What are the implications when people think helping a cause means simply sharing its message? It's more than they would have done otherwise, yes, but is it enough to justify the money spent towards promoting that action? Tufekci says "The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences." I'm left wondering, "will they only listen to a simplistic message then? Will they only look for a message that emotionally compels them to share a video? Is that what they will expect from human rights advocacy? Or will they look deeper for the full, less dramatic context that's not so spreadable?" If we believe that tweet bombing a celebrity is a form of "symbolic power" and therefore we have done our share, what good is participating in more meaningful ways like listening to African citizens and supporting local, African-led organizations? I'm not saying awareness is bad, I just worry that the goal of these campaigns (and the money required to support that goal) will be focused on earning attention from the people who actually won't help in the most effective ways. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:21, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-26T17:12:05Z

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 26'''

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.

We will be joined in the beginning of class by [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/oodewale Oluwaseun "Egghead" Odewale], a fellow at the Berkman Center and an expert on West African elections and civil affairs.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

As a reminder, [[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3]] is due ''before class'' today. You can submit that assignment [[Assignment 3 Submissions|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNP9f8geCWA Yochai Benkler, SOPA/PIPA: A Case Study in Networked Discourse and Activism] (approx. 16 mins., watch all)

* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]

* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]

* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]

* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.

Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.

First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine. We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean. This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other.

The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different. Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.

Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have. We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.

The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late. We need a happy medium. As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012. Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media. In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology. In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!

To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:

''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side. [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''

This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective. How much does a "click" really matter? As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse. However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road. In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens. The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight. This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action.

''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''

Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media. Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities. Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time. As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media. Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives? Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground?

An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers). Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online. Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness. Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword. It is sometimes a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general. Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography. I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.

This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame.
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined. With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication. Asking ourselves what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while. Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.

However the construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.

The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato) Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective, and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda, became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement .... the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

*****

The lecture about the evolution of the Internet in contrast with SOPA and PIPA was quite interesting to listen. The PIPA act is viewed as a grant to the social and political reforms that enables the facilitation of piracy. Although many are opposed to both SOPA and PIPA Act, there is ample benefit that implements the decrease of the piracy rate in the United States along with the careful consideration of copyright effect. In my view, SOPA and PIPA would make diverse websites more inaccessible, which would prevent users for exercising their freedom of speech. Social problems would ultimately cost millions of dollars to support new technologies. These bills do portray an infringing benefit for copyright and pirated material that could distress the entertainment industry within the www. Most Internet users enjoy the freedom to surf, post, and explore the Internet, however online piracy is a real problem that Congress sees it as an issue. The debate about censorship involves diverse major bills that are designed to stop the copyright and piracy, but is it enough? Ample companies seek protection rights to their product or good, how limited the implication of censorship could come along? The vast majority of users seem to react on serious revisions to protect our rights as citizens, which will introduce a new prospective premise within the usage on free knowledge, and “limited” expression of speech. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

*****

Today the readings were fabulous; if I do say so myself. I thought about a lot. This deepest thoughts I had were about the power of the doctoral degree. I just realized that there is always competition and that a doctoral degree makes a person better to socialize with others of the same dignity.

Now, with this having been said, read the following:

"There was an apple that was a mango, it said to a comma, "Where is your period?". The comma said, that period is not required, because we are all useful"

- the previous quotation is not the opinion of this author, yet is used to illustrate nothing, since it is a translation of thought, to media, then reanalyzed by a different person's virtual "avatar", if we may.

Does this require a doctorate of English? Is computer language actually censored, or is it sentured? This type of problem, the articles discussed, but the metaphysics of this diaspora is not implicitly "bit for bit".

I am excited for lecture today, and above all, and not a supremacist. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:55, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-03-26T13:25:56Z

Asellars: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

This assignment is due on March 26. 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 name your file "wikiusername_Assignment3," where "wikiusername" is replaced with your username, to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment or causing errors in the Wiki by including forbidden characters.'' So if your username is "jdoe" and your file is a Word document your file should be named "jdoe_Assignment3.doc."

'''Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:Upload Upload file]'''

Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

==Submission Instructions==

*Name or pseudonym:
*Description:
*Link to your outline:

Optionally you can use a new template to create a title box for your assignment. In order to do this use the following format:
<pre>
{{AssignmentInfo|Name|My assignment description|Link to your file}}
</pre>

If used properly you should see the following:
{{AssignmentInfo|My Name|My assignment description|http://yourlinkhere}}

You may also use some new templates for comments and responses.

<pre>
{{Comment|type your comment here}}
</pre>

Should look like:
{{Comment|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor inviduntut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. }}

You can enter a response in a similar way:
<pre>
{{Response|type your response here}}
</pre>
Should look like:
{{Response|thank you very much for commenting on my assignment.}}

'''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.'''

==Submissions==

{{AssignmentInfo|Asmith|A Few Bad Apples: Grappling with Troublesome Users on Diaspora|http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Asmith_Assignment3.pdf}}

{{AssignmentInfo|Milenagrado|How does Reclame Aqui avoid bias?|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc|File: Milenagrado_assignment_3_.doc}} [[User:Milenagrado|Milenagrado]] 21:10, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|RichCacioppo|Hypocritical or Sincere Users and Restrictions of Free Speech|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/sites/is2013/images/Hypocritical_or_Sincere_Users_and_Restrictions_of_Free_Speech.pdf}}
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:12, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

{{AssignmentInfo|Maria Jurado|Internet regulation in Argentina, the case of Taringa!|
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:Maria_Jurado_Assignment3.pdf}} --[[User:Maria|Maria]] 09:16, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-25T18:43:58Z

Asellars:

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-25T18:41:24Z

Asellars:

Assignments

2013-03-12T23:29:17Z

Asellars: /* Assignment 3: Project Outline */

{{AssignmentCal}}
During the course of the semester, you will be responsible for the following assignments, tasks, and projects:

==Class Participation==

* [[Class Participation|General Class Participation]]: This obligation is ongoing.

* [[Class Participation|Comment/Critique of Rough Drafts]]: You do this as a response to one of the rough drafts put together by your colleagues in [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]].

==Group Work==
'''Students have the option of working in groups for Assignments 2-4 and the Final Project.''' Working in a group can be fun and productive and should enable the participants to take their topic farther than an individual. Students should also consider the time required to coordinate their activities and potential complications of group work. A majority of students in previous classes have had a good experience working in groups.

The maximum group size is three. Those that wish to work in a group will be responsible for forming and organizing the group by March 12 at the latest. For those that choose to work in a group, it is essential to come to a clear understanding within the group how the work will be shared. ''There is an additional class requirement for those that work in a group: each group must submit a statement that describes the contribution of each member of the group.''

'''Prospective groups should submit a short paragraph by March 12 explaining why a group approach to their proposed topic for the final project makes sense.'''

Looking to form a group or join a group? Need a partner? Go to the [[Group Project Page]].

==Assignments==

===Assignment 1: Wikipedia===
'''Due February 12'''

'''See full assignment details [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|here]]'''

For this assignment, you will investigate the rich social ecosystem and organizational structure that allows [http://en.wikipedia.com Wikipedia] to function. Specifically, you will explore some of the community policies that govern Wikipedia, and write a report on how these rules play out in practice, and whether they contribute to or inhibit collaboration on Wikipedia. More details on the assignment as well as the menu of rules to choose from, as well as a space for you to report your observations can be found on the [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]].

'''Submit your reports here: [[Assignment 1 Submissions]]'''

===Assignment 2: Prospectus===
'''Prospectus Due February 26, Comments on Prospectus Due March 5.'''

This assignment is in two parts, with the prospectus due before class on February 26th, and comments on the prospectuses of your peers due on March 5th.

For this assignment, you will choose a topic that will be later developed into your '''[[Final Project]]'''. You may '''[[Assignments#Group_Work|work in groups.]]'''
* Read the description of the final project on the [[Final Project]] page.
* Write a one page prospectus (no more than 400 words) of a topic you would like work on for your final project. Thinking of the big picture: write your research questions, prepare your potential arguments, and do a bit of research. Use links as appropriate.
* The goal is to '''identify a focused research question (or set of research questions)''' and to explain how you will answer these questions. What methodologies will you use or observable behaviors will you examine to address your topic? What case study/community will you use?
* If you are interested in pursuing a format other than a paper (see the [[Final Project]] page for more info), please mention this in your prospectus.

The purpose of the prospectus is to help you start thinking about your final project. Your proposal doesn't need to be a final product, and your topic may change, but putting in the time to develop an idea up front will help you as you work on your project later in the semester.

'''Submitting Your Prospectus'''
* When you have completed your proposal, upload your document as a .txt file (or related readable format, such as .rtf, .doc, and .odt) to the class Wiki using the ''Upload file'' link to the left. (Remember to write your name on your assignment and in the file name!)
* Write your name, the title of your project, and link to your document on the '''[[Assignment 2 Submissions]]''' page.

'''Submitting Your Comments'''
* Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded. Your comments should be made on the '''[[Assignment 2 Submissions]]''' page itself, and we ask that you give comments on at least three prospectuses. These comments can be reactions, feedback, thoughts, suggestions for further research, personal insights, or anything else that will help the student further his or her work. ''Please try to balance your comments across the submitted material so that each student receives a couple of comments.''
* ''Comments should be submitted by '''March 5th''''' so there remains enough time to incorporate them into project outlines. Remember to sign your comments so we can be sure to give you credit!

===Assignment 3: Project Outline===
'''Due March 26'''

Submit an outline (2-4 pages, double-spaced, including a list of related materials and sources) of your project along with a description of the methodological approach you will take for the project. If you are taking an empirical approach, describe how you will structure your observations and data gathering.

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]]''', provided you have submitted a short paragraph to the instructors by March 12 explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.

'''Submit your outline and description here: [[Assignment 3 Submissions]]'''

===Assignment 4: Rough Draft===
'''Due April 23'''

'''[[Assignments#Group_Work|You may work in groups]]''', provided you have submitted a short paragraph to the instructors by March 12 explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.

This assignment will be to turn in a rough draft of your final, 8-10 page final project paper (or presentation equivalent). It will be a chance for us to give you some comments, and suggest some places to push your research project forward in the next few weeks. This should be a complete or near-complete version of your final project, so your work between now and the final deadline will principally be refining, editing, and adding further research to make a good paper even better.

'''Submit your rough draft here: [[Assignment 4 Submissions]]'''

We do not require it, but students in past years also participated in voluntary peer review. We have created a page for [[Assignment 4 Peer Review]] that allows you a forum to do so.

==Extra Credit==
'''Due May 7'''

'''Submit your extra credit/sign up for an in-class presentation here: [[Extra Credit Submissions]]'''

If you are interested, you may create an audiovisual work discussing and presenting your research to date OR present your final research paper in class. Those that submit a satisfactory piece will receive one extra point on their final assignment grade, which is graded on a five point scale.

The work could be an audio file (such as a podcast), a video, or an in-class presentation. You should aim for a length of 3-5 minutes (there is 7 minute maximum). Content and presentation are much more important than length (a compelling 2-minute audio interview would be great). These may be presented in class on May 14th.

Possible ideas for A/V works include:

*An audio podcast or video interview with someone doing influential work related to your project
*A video medley and/or remix
*A podcast show in which participants debate the topic
*A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Map mindmap] image that charts out a policy debate or domain
*A photo montage
*A short film
*A song or musical work drawing from various samples
*A song with lyrics
*A data visualization

You can upload your project [[Extra Credit Submissions|here]].

==Final Project==
'''Due May 14'''

*For details, see the [[Final Project]] page.

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T21:05:53Z

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which 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 class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Special guest speaker this week is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], a project coordinator here at Berkman who runs [http://chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

'''Case Study: SOPA/PIPA'''
:* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]
:* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

'''Case Study: ISP "Six Strikes"'''
:* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, On The Media, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information]
:* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Google's decision concerning the horrific video posted in Matthew Ingram', Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters, raises an interesting question. Google has now assumed the role of immediate arbiter in terms of determining what is and is not copyright infringement. I understand the point that the student who took the video at the NASCAR event created his own copyrighted document when he created the video, but NASCAR's counter, that it had a contractual right to the content of the video pursuant to the valid contract on the ticket the customer purchased would seem to have some merit to it. Google in accepting the customer's rights over NASCAR's contractual rights has effectively made a legal decision that will cause brand damage to NASCAR. I can see how NASCAR could claim these damages against Google in a suit.
I suppose this is just another example of how powerful Google has become in determining what average Westerner's will see on the internet. A quick Google search for the word 'nude' will have google proffering you thousands of images and videos of porn, which is easily accessible by minors. Google IS the way that we all access the internet, given its prevalance in our lives I'd be surprised if the government doesn't create more formality in Google's decision making processes with regards to copyright, freedom of speech, protection of minors, and all sorts of other legal issues that Google is now deciding for society. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

::Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Were NASCAR to do that expect me to argue the case for the student pro bono. :-) (By the way, the credit card slip argument was the best I could come up with as to a writing, but I think it's a failure as well.) More seriously, NASCAR can always exercise the rights of trespass law and remove someone once their presence was no longer welcome – and that right is what keeps NBC from cutting into Fox's exclusive coverage by buying a ticket and showing up. As to Google's role, it's worth nothing that Google's decision was not without a risk – by exercising its own discretion there what they did was remove their chance to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, and thus exposing themselves for a potential contributory liability claim by hosting the material. Their decision to take that risk is very interesting, and not unlike how they would approach any other liability question outside of the DMCA world – they are immune from suit either way, and opt to decide based on their own interests. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

I find the legislation and history on copyright law and infringement extremely confusing. It seems as if SOPA and PIPA would have completely negated major aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I share the belief that the propositions of those bills would have limited innovation. Had SOPA/PIPA have passed, I think the case of Vietnamese accessing Facebook shows that there exists markets in foreign regions that will engage in illegal means of accessing those domain names. I also was interested in the "backdoor" that sites like youtube have for content providers to remove infringed material. What other "backdoors" exist regarding copyright law and content infrastructure? [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:That's a really good point, Aaron. Thanks for mentioning it. You should definitely ask Adam about the YouTube ContentID system that they have used as an overlap to the DMCA, and what sort of problems he's seen in its implementation. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

As we study copyright, it is important to note that copyright and in fact all intellectual property laws ... patents, trademarks, trade secrets along with copyrights are in fact limitations of free speech. But the latter is not open and unlimited. Free speech has been called the core all truly democratic nations. What qualifies as a democracy is but another issue difficult if not impossible to determine depending on the definition and myriad of points of view. One estimate is 132. Regardless, given there are an estimated 350-500 million Internet users in China alone, more than every man, woman and child in United States combined, designing and controlling an Internet as a vehicle for democratic nations alone will guarantee it will reach less than half of the world's population. But even in so-called democracies free speech is not unlimited. It is qualified and limited by the need for national securities and compelling interests, the the universal rather than the individual interest, moral fiber, sensititivity, defamatory laws and the damages that can often occur by uncontrolled exposure and disclosure of information that can do more damage than good. Some control is necessary to maintain order and prevent a disorganized free for all in an attempt to exercise free speech which many do only to exercise the principal and fight to assert their own freedom of expression, regardless of the consequences.

Intellectual property laws are intended to reward those who have created things with the sweat of their brow, the absence of which will quell any incentive and to enrich the social. Without intellectual property laws mankind over the last few ages of the Industrial and now Information Revolutions would have been relegated to pre-18th century technological, communication and transportation breakthroughs. Art and science would have been inhibited. So what is needed is a proper balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:05, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:The balance between copyright and free speech is a fascinating one. There are two [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 very significant] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Golan+v.+Holder&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=3239612723066820072&scilh=0 Supreme Court cases] on point - and in general the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that copyright itself does not violate the First Amendment (Justice O'Connor in another case famously called it the "engine of free expression"), but only as long as it includes the "traditional contours" or fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy. While this does mean as a practical matter that substantive challenges to copyright laws will not win in US courts, we tend to impose ''procedural'' protections for categorically unprotected speech that had a serious role to play in the SOPA/PIPA debate, as well as "Operation in our Sites" mentioned in the additional reading. As to whether copyright is meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," I think that it certainly informs the desire to make copyright laws, but we know from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Fesit+v.+Rural&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=1195336269698056315&scilh=0 other Supreme Court precedent] that labor alone is not enough to obtain copyright protection in a work - it is instead the contribution of original expression that merits protection under the American system. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The DCMA and Safe Harbor Act seem a useful alterternative to the report of Germany blocking for example the meteor video from Russia because there was music playing faintly in the background. Being able to post that you do not own the copyright, make no money off of it, and simply are posting for entertainment is a very familiar story on YouTube when perusing for videos. The NASCAR accident video seems a matter of due diligence so they could protect themselves from liability from the victims claiming NASCAR did not try to stop people videoing their injuries while on NASCAR property during an event. The Slung Lo example showed me the difficulty of implementing copyright infringement in court when not represented by a large company, as the commentary on the Copyright Alert System and Six Strikes alluded to and in other commentaries online regarding Six Strikes weaknesses. SOPA and PIPA I understand wish to protect property, but how many people have links to copyrighted material? On YouTube, Facebook, and blogs? What if you send a copyrighted link by email? SOPA and PIPA would send a chilling effect throughout the internet that would actually drive down the amount of internet use. CAS would keep track of violations, and a user would have to be so careful to not get six strikes as employers could access who is some type of "criminal" copyright infringer according to a extra-judicial body such as CAS. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately, those who wish to profit off of internet content and sharing must post some type of copyright mark on their creation that says to all users with a symbol, this can never be shared without permission, for any reason. However, when one enters the public space, one has to understand that some type of sharing and infringement of ideas is going to occur for non-profit reasons. This should be encouraged. Perhaps the line should only be drawn when content is used for profit. In any case, if one puts out material publically for their own gratification, one should expect that it is going to be copied. If one wishes to protect those creation rights, a bundle of legal rights through copyright law is already available through access to the courts, without over regulating the internet that is literally opening an entire new world to a global population that has lived in isolation for too long.
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 03:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The First Amendment is an American legal concept,albeit free speech is global. Intellectual property rights are infringements on free speech, albeit necessary to accomplish the purposes of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets which are to encourage advancements in the arts and scientists while assuring and creating incentives for those who create new ideas and products. The antithesis of organization and control is total independence and free will. If there are not safeguards in place to organize and monitor free speech chaos will follow. I think it was once said that more deaths and injuries have been caused by the written and spoken word than all the guns every made.

On last week's discussion board I posted my comments on this subject in ore depth, so I will not repeat them here, other than to again empathize that free speech is part of global communication that the Internet provides and all societies do not welcome it with open arms so if we are to get the rest of the world to coordinate the great potential of the Internet, we need to compromise even our most cherished personal right.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

While I am all in favour of free speech, I guess I have to add - "to a point".
In the article about the Nascar video being reinstated, it seemed to be touted as some great victory for copyright and free speech that it was re-released after being pulled. Here is my issue with that and all other like situations. What about the right of the victim (or any individual) that has been hurt or worse and is then immortalized on video or in pictures trapped under a burning tire etc. In the interests of full disclosure, a member of my family was killed in a serious car accident which resulted in a building partially falling on top of his vehicle. It was bad enough to see the pictures of the car after he had been pulled out, but I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be the relative of that person and see pictures of him. Freedom of speech is a gift and a wonderful thing, but in this age of instant pictures and video should we not be more sensitive to the lives attached (specifically) to tragedy? What good does it do in the broader debate about freedom when the rights of the individual, who may not be able to speak for themselves, are not consulted. I suggest that maybe that isn't freedom of speech as much as sensationalism although I am sure others would argue differently. Life seems to swing in a pendulum. Maybe my descendants will move back to a more closed society if one major event that I can't project pushes the value system of the majority to say enough. I'm not sure and I would welcome any comments. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 09:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

:That's a great point, Caroline. We'll be turning to privacy in more depth in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Privacy April]. The decision to post something like that or not is certainly one that has some precedent - and every time there is a horrific event captured on camera there are extensive discussions concerning whether it should be posted. And, for what it's worth, YouTube does reserve the right in its [http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines community guidelines] to regulate those things on its end - that said, we've already seen and will see again the weaknesses in relying on intermediary censorship to solve content issues. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::I, too, was going to make Caroline's point regarding the treatment of the footage of a violent injury or death. It seems to me that the fact that it depicts somebody's death would be sufficient justification to take the video down, assuming there was nothing newsworthy about the incident. Are we really surprised that NASCAR driving is dangerous? Do we need to see someone's grisly and gruesome death for evidence? Wouldn't words suffice? Doesn't Google, through YouTube, get to determine what they do and do not host on their servers? Are we confusing editing and good taste with censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:17, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::This is a small point, but I don't think the video actually depicts a person's death. There were a few serious injuries in the crash, but no one was killed. (At least my search of the news finds no such reporting.) And while the crash is troubling to watch (we certainly aren't requiring you to watch it, but it is embedded in the article for today's reading), it also is highly informative. The public outcry from the NASCAR video's wide circulation resulted in [http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/02/23/huge-car-crash-mars-nationwide-series-race-at-daytona/1941529/ reform to spectator conditions at NASCAR events]. Would words have sufficed? Possibly. And is Google serving as the ultimate arbiter right now? Definitely. But there are scores of examples in our history of when it took the world seeing a horrific situation in order to motivate action, so regardless of who makes the decision there are compelling reasons on both sides for having it disseminated or not. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:40, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::::That's a great set of points. As to Google's right or reason for hosting it on YouTube, all I would add for perspective is the practical fact that having websites like YouTube substantially lowers the barriers to entry for participation online. (Imagine how tough a space this would be if everyone had to understand web publishing from DNS registration and CNAME setup through FTP through HTML in order to have a web page.) So all forms of online publication platforms - YouTube, Blogger, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, etc. – all serve an important value-added in that they lower the technical literacy necessary to get material online, and provide a platform that increases the likelihood that at least some network of people will see it. They, in effect, become the public squares of the online world. Should the profit, should they not, should they or the users decide what goes into the public debate – these are the really, really tough questions that we face now. What Section 230 does in the defamation/privacy world and Section 512 does in the copyright world is push a lot of the liability – and thus a lot of the legal pressure on the decisionmaking process, onto the user. But this doesn't mean the social media spaces will simply do what the user does – it can also mean that they can exercise their own editorial judgment based on their own values, and there's not much we can do as users to persuade them to change their mind. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:05, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Most arguments calling for stronger copyright right enforcement - such as those that support SOPA, PIPA, and the 6-strikes Copyright Alert System - base their argument on the billions of dollars lost to piracy, which itself can be divided to estimate the number of jobs lost in the United States.The two questions I always wonder are: are these numbers being exaggerated by the entertainment industry? And do these numbers truly reflect the real loss of the entertainment industry?

Although what I'm going to say is going to be mainly based on peer observation, I think it's worth noting. For this comment, I'll focus on music. I know people who place a higher value on property rights and insists on buying their music in cd form or from iTunes. These people actually DO view internet piracy as stealing and frown upon it. But I shall be honest and point out that these people also have more leisure money to purchase what they want.

On the other hand, I have also met people who are taking advantage of the internet to discover and "own" music that they would otherwise not buy if piracy options were not available. These are people who may or may not have had the leisure money, but nevertheless would never have spent money to "own" the music if piracy was not an option in the first place.

Then there are those who have no financial obstacles at all but argue that it is foolish to spend money when there obviously are ways to get the music freely. I think this group can be divided into those who would buy music if there was no piracy option and those who would not have spent money in the first place.

I really wonder if ideas like the Copyright Alert System would really boost the earnings of the entertainment industry (which is their true objective after all) or whether in the end these systems end up throttling the internet and the principles, such as free speech, that we think the internet should stand for.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

After reading the article ''A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement'', one important idea surrounding this topic became clear: we acknowledge copyright infringement when it directly affects us. Many ignore online copyright, because it is often embedded in the actions that people take when using the Internet. In other words, some may be committing illegal acts without realizing it, while others do so purposely. Whether unintentional or intentional, one must contemplate both sides of the copyright law debate: protecting the creator or restricting one’s freedom of speech.

I think one comment in Erin McKeown’s blog captures the essence of the other articles: ''“I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content.”'' Due to the complexity, loopholes, and associated legal processes surrounding copyright infringement, many can often remain unprotected. Some agree and others do not…what do you think?

SOPA’s enactment seems to make this environment even more convoluted. It gives tools to the U.S. Attorney General to combat “foreign infringing sites,” but sites with...''“a domain name registered outside the U.S. seems to count as ‘foreign,’ even if it’s run by an American company and hosted on U.S. soil. Id., at § 101(5)-101(8)”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011). This policy not only places a lot of companies in the line of fire, but it also puts an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of corporate Executives. ''“The overwhelming controversy regarding SOPA’s public remedies regards the provision allowing a court to order a service provider–essentially an unwitting middleman–to take all 'technically feasible and reasonable measures' to block an infringing site”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011).

The gray area of accountability that we read about a few weeks ago, in relation to the Anti-Muslim Youtube video, emerges again when analyzing online copyright laws. Who is ultimately held responsible? Why should Internet-related companies decide between freedom of speech and/or copyright infringement (vs. the government)? If the private sector is expected to assume new roles and responsibilities, how can companies truly play this role, in terms of time, resources, and judgment calls? ''“The burden of reviewing user-submitted content – every blog post, every video, every image – would be impossible for a company to manage, and companies would have likely stuck with the Web 1.0 model of publishing edited, vetted content instead of moving to a Web 2.0 model where users create the content”'' (Zuckerman and Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, 2012).

As a final thought, I’d like to second the statement above, by Asellas. I agree that the balance between copyright and free speech is an interesting controversy. I also agree with your final statement, illustrating the true definition of copyright protection, i.e., copyright defends original expression that merits protection under the U.S. legal system. The complexity and associated controversies surrounding “original expression” are ubiquitous—there are many “shapes and sizes” of original expression, which in many ways, makes this current debate so challenging to decipher. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:24, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T21:00:18Z

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which 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 class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Special guest speaker this week is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], a project coordinator here at Berkman who runs [http://chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

'''Case Study: SOPA/PIPA'''
:* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]
:* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

'''Case Study: ISP "Six Strikes"'''
:* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, On The Media, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information]
:* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Google's decision concerning the horrific video posted in Matthew Ingram', Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters, raises an interesting question. Google has now assumed the role of immediate arbiter in terms of determining what is and is not copyright infringement. I understand the point that the student who took the video at the NASCAR event created his own copyrighted document when he created the video, but NASCAR's counter, that it had a contractual right to the content of the video pursuant to the valid contract on the ticket the customer purchased would seem to have some merit to it. Google in accepting the customer's rights over NASCAR's contractual rights has effectively made a legal decision that will cause brand damage to NASCAR. I can see how NASCAR could claim these damages against Google in a suit.
I suppose this is just another example of how powerful Google has become in determining what average Westerner's will see on the internet. A quick Google search for the word 'nude' will have google proffering you thousands of images and videos of porn, which is easily accessible by minors. Google IS the way that we all access the internet, given its prevalance in our lives I'd be surprised if the government doesn't create more formality in Google's decision making processes with regards to copyright, freedom of speech, protection of minors, and all sorts of other legal issues that Google is now deciding for society. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

::Hi Andy, you might be right that the copyright wasn't transferred in the situaution. But if NASCAR paid a bunch of wall-street lawyers to argue that it was, you can bet that they would at least put the student through his paces in proving that he owned the copyright. Off the top of my head, I would investigate whether he purchased the ticket with credit cards and signed the receipt and whether that qualifies as a signature for the purposes of the act. I'd also note that a competing broadcaster would almost certainly be banned from setting up a high tower and televising the races without a licence, one would think similar legal arguments would apply. If he tried to record and broadcast the entire event on Youtube there would likely be some law against that. In any event, the point was that Google immediately decided the dispute between the parties without guidance from the Courts, and given how often they do this I'd be surprised if the government doesn't step in to monitor them more in the future. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 16:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::Were NASCAR to do that expect me to argue the case for the student pro bono. :-) (By the way, the credit card slip argument was the best I could come up with as to a writing, but I think it's a failure as well.) More seriously, NASCAR can always exercise the rights of trespass law and remove someone once their presence was no longer welcome – and that right is what keeps NBC from cutting into Fox's exclusive coverage by buying a ticket and showing up. As to Google's role, it's worth nothing that Google's decision was not without a risk – by exercising its own discretion there what they did was remove their chance to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, and thus exposing themselves for a potential contributory liability claim by hosting the material. Their decision to take that risk is very interesting, and not unlike how they would approach any other liability question outside of the DMCA world – they are immune from suit either way, and opt to decide based on their own interests. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 17:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

I find the legislation and history on copyright law and infringement extremely confusing. It seems as if SOPA and PIPA would have completely negated major aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I share the belief that the propositions of those bills would have limited innovation. Had SOPA/PIPA have passed, I think the case of Vietnamese accessing Facebook shows that there exists markets in foreign regions that will engage in illegal means of accessing those domain names. I also was interested in the "backdoor" that sites like youtube have for content providers to remove infringed material. What other "backdoors" exist regarding copyright law and content infrastructure? [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:That's a really good point, Aaron. Thanks for mentioning it. You should definitely ask Adam about the YouTube ContentID system that they have used as an overlap to the DMCA, and what sort of problems he's seen in its implementation. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

As we study copyright, it is important to note that copyright and in fact all intellectual property laws ... patents, trademarks, trade secrets along with copyrights are in fact limitations of free speech. But the latter is not open and unlimited. Free speech has been called the core all truly democratic nations. What qualifies as a democracy is but another issue difficult if not impossible to determine depending on the definition and myriad of points of view. One estimate is 132. Regardless, given there are an estimated 350-500 million Internet users in China alone, more than every man, woman and child in United States combined, designing and controlling an Internet as a vehicle for democratic nations alone will guarantee it will reach less than half of the world's population. But even in so-called democracies free speech is not unlimited. It is qualified and limited by the need for national securities and compelling interests, the the universal rather than the individual interest, moral fiber, sensititivity, defamatory laws and the damages that can often occur by uncontrolled exposure and disclosure of information that can do more damage than good. Some control is necessary to maintain order and prevent a disorganized free for all in an attempt to exercise free speech which many do only to exercise the principal and fight to assert their own freedom of expression, regardless of the consequences.

Intellectual property laws are intended to reward those who have created things with the sweat of their brow, the absence of which will quell any incentive and to enrich the social. Without intellectual property laws mankind over the last few ages of the Industrial and now Information Revolutions would have been relegated to pre-18th century technological, communication and transportation breakthroughs. Art and science would have been inhibited. So what is needed is a proper balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:05, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:The balance between copyright and free speech is a fascinating one. There are two [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 very significant] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Golan+v.+Holder&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=3239612723066820072&scilh=0 Supreme Court cases] on point - and in general the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that copyright itself does not violate the First Amendment (Justice O'Connor in another case famously called it the "engine of free expression"), but only as long as it includes the "traditional contours" or fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy. While this does mean as a practical matter that substantive challenges to copyright laws will not win in US courts, we tend to impose ''procedural'' protections for categorically unprotected speech that had a serious role to play in the SOPA/PIPA debate, as well as "Operation in our Sites" mentioned in the additional reading. As to whether copyright is meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," I think that it certainly informs the desire to make copyright laws, but we know from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Fesit+v.+Rural&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=1195336269698056315&scilh=0 other Supreme Court precedent] that labor alone is not enough to obtain copyright protection in a work - it is instead the contribution of original expression that merits protection under the American system. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The DCMA and Safe Harbor Act seem a useful alterternative to the report of Germany blocking for example the meteor video from Russia because there was music playing faintly in the background. Being able to post that you do not own the copyright, make no money off of it, and simply are posting for entertainment is a very familiar story on YouTube when perusing for videos. The NASCAR accident video seems a matter of due diligence so they could protect themselves from liability from the victims claiming NASCAR did not try to stop people videoing their injuries while on NASCAR property during an event. The Slung Lo example showed me the difficulty of implementing copyright infringement in court when not represented by a large company, as the commentary on the Copyright Alert System and Six Strikes alluded to and in other commentaries online regarding Six Strikes weaknesses. SOPA and PIPA I understand wish to protect property, but how many people have links to copyrighted material? On YouTube, Facebook, and blogs? What if you send a copyrighted link by email? SOPA and PIPA would send a chilling effect throughout the internet that would actually drive down the amount of internet use. CAS would keep track of violations, and a user would have to be so careful to not get six strikes as employers could access who is some type of "criminal" copyright infringer according to a extra-judicial body such as CAS. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately, those who wish to profit off of internet content and sharing must post some type of copyright mark on their creation that says to all users with a symbol, this can never be shared without permission, for any reason. However, when one enters the public space, one has to understand that some type of sharing and infringement of ideas is going to occur for non-profit reasons. This should be encouraged. Perhaps the line should only be drawn when content is used for profit. In any case, if one puts out material publically for their own gratification, one should expect that it is going to be copied. If one wishes to protect those creation rights, a bundle of legal rights through copyright law is already available through access to the courts, without over regulating the internet that is literally opening an entire new world to a global population that has lived in isolation for too long.
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 03:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The First Amendment is an American legal concept,albeit free speech is global. Intellectual property rights are infringements on free speech, albeit necessary to accomplish the purposes of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets which are to encourage advancements in the arts and scientists while assuring and creating incentives for those who create new ideas and products. The antithesis of organization and control is total independence and free will. If there are not safeguards in place to organize and monitor free speech chaos will follow. I think it was once said that more deaths and injuries have been caused by the written and spoken word than all the guns every made.

On last week's discussion board I posted my comments on this subject in ore depth, so I will not repeat them here, other than to again empathize that free speech is part of global communication that the Internet provides and all societies do not welcome it with open arms so if we are to get the rest of the world to coordinate the great potential of the Internet, we need to compromise even our most cherished personal right.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

While I am all in favour of free speech, I guess I have to add - "to a point".
In the article about the Nascar video being reinstated, it seemed to be touted as some great victory for copyright and free speech that it was re-released after being pulled. Here is my issue with that and all other like situations. What about the right of the victim (or any individual) that has been hurt or worse and is then immortalized on video or in pictures trapped under a burning tire etc. In the interests of full disclosure, a member of my family was killed in a serious car accident which resulted in a building partially falling on top of his vehicle. It was bad enough to see the pictures of the car after he had been pulled out, but I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be the relative of that person and see pictures of him. Freedom of speech is a gift and a wonderful thing, but in this age of instant pictures and video should we not be more sensitive to the lives attached (specifically) to tragedy? What good does it do in the broader debate about freedom when the rights of the individual, who may not be able to speak for themselves, are not consulted. I suggest that maybe that isn't freedom of speech as much as sensationalism although I am sure others would argue differently. Life seems to swing in a pendulum. Maybe my descendants will move back to a more closed society if one major event that I can't project pushes the value system of the majority to say enough. I'm not sure and I would welcome any comments. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 09:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

:That's a great point, Caroline. We'll be turning to privacy in more depth in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Privacy April]. The decision to post something like that or not is certainly one that has some precedent - and every time there is a horrific event captured on camera there are extensive discussions concerning whether it should be posted. And, for what it's worth, YouTube does reserve the right in its [http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines community guidelines] to regulate those things on its end - that said, we've already seen and will see again the weaknesses in relying on intermediary censorship to solve content issues. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::I, too, was going to make Caroline's point regarding the treatment of the footage of a violent injury or death. It seems to me that the fact that it depicts somebody's death would be sufficient justification to take the video down, assuming there was nothing newsworthy about the incident. Are we really surprised that NASCAR driving is dangerous? Do we need to see someone's grisly and gruesome death for evidence? Wouldn't words suffice? Doesn't Google, through YouTube, get to determine what they do and do not host on their servers? Are we confusing editing and good taste with censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:17, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::This is a small point, but I don't think the video actually depicts a person's death. There were a few serious injuries in the crash, but no one was killed. (At least my search of the news finds no such reporting.) And while the crash is troubling to watch (we certainly aren't requiring you to watch it, but it is embedded in the article for today's reading), it also is highly informative. The public outcry from the NASCAR video's wide circulation resulted in [http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/02/23/huge-car-crash-mars-nationwide-series-race-at-daytona/1941529/ reform to spectator conditions at NASCAR events]. Would words have sufficed? Possibly. And is Google serving as the ultimate arbiter right now? Definitely. But there are scores of examples in our history of when it took the world seeing a horrific situation in order to motivate action, so regardless of who makes the decision there are compelling reasons on both sides for having it disseminated or not. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:40, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::::It's totally possible that the fact that it wasn't the scene of a death was evident to anyone viewing the clip closely. I just didn't watch closely. And I do appreciate the need to pressure event sponsors to ensure adequate public safety, especially if the attendees lack the good sense to manage that aspect of self-preservation for themselves. But must Google earn advertising revenue from the repeated viewing of another's misfortune? Or must Google pay for the hosting of such a video, if they cannot or will not earn revenue from hosting it? I don't think your point about whether we are viewing a death or a severe injury or merely a prolonged hospital stay is a minor one. I also don't think that we've been given enough evidence that Google has an obligation to host the video. However, I am willing to learn that that is because I haven't been paying sufficient attention. I don't mean to take censorship lightly, I hope that I don't. Nor do I mean to say that we should have some public morals squad, out removing videos that offend. I wouldn't want that either. I just would like to understand more clearly why it is in our best interests to tell Google what they can and cannot host on their servers, when what they are hosting could be offensive to many and the value the content provides to anyone is not clear. If you say that the existence of that video on YouTube saved lives, or provided some other public good, and you also say that we, the public, have given Google something other than our time and attention, something valuable that gives us the right to insist that they provide bandwidth to save lives, then ok. I can get behind that. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:51, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Most arguments calling for stronger copyright right enforcement - such as those that support SOPA, PIPA, and the 6-strikes Copyright Alert System - base their argument on the billions of dollars lost to piracy, which itself can be divided to estimate the number of jobs lost in the United States.The two questions I always wonder are: are these numbers being exaggerated by the entertainment industry? And do these numbers truly reflect the real loss of the entertainment industry?

Although what I'm going to say is going to be mainly based on peer observation, I think it's worth noting. For this comment, I'll focus on music. I know people who place a higher value on property rights and insists on buying their music in cd form or from iTunes. These people actually DO view internet piracy as stealing and frown upon it. But I shall be honest and point out that these people also have more leisure money to purchase what they want.

On the other hand, I have also met people who are taking advantage of the internet to discover and "own" music that they would otherwise not buy if piracy options were not available. These are people who may or may not have had the leisure money, but nevertheless would never have spent money to "own" the music if piracy was not an option in the first place.

Then there are those who have no financial obstacles at all but argue that it is foolish to spend money when there obviously are ways to get the music freely. I think this group can be divided into those who would buy music if there was no piracy option and those who would not have spent money in the first place.

I really wonder if ideas like the Copyright Alert System would really boost the earnings of the entertainment industry (which is their true objective after all) or whether in the end these systems end up throttling the internet and the principles, such as free speech, that we think the internet should stand for.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

After reading the article ''A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement'', one important idea surrounding this topic became clear: we acknowledge copyright infringement when it directly affects us. Many ignore online copyright, because it is often embedded in the actions that people take when using the Internet. In other words, some may be committing illegal acts without realizing it, while others do so purposely. Whether unintentional or intentional, one must contemplate both sides of the copyright law debate: protecting the creator or restricting one’s freedom of speech.

I think one comment in Erin McKeown’s blog captures the essence of the other articles: ''“I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content.”'' Due to the complexity, loopholes, and associated legal processes surrounding copyright infringement, many can often remain unprotected. Some agree and others do not…what do you think?

SOPA’s enactment seems to make this environment even more convoluted. It gives tools to the U.S. Attorney General to combat “foreign infringing sites,” but sites with...''“a domain name registered outside the U.S. seems to count as ‘foreign,’ even if it’s run by an American company and hosted on U.S. soil. Id., at § 101(5)-101(8)”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011). This policy not only places a lot of companies in the line of fire, but it also puts an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of corporate Executives. ''“The overwhelming controversy regarding SOPA’s public remedies regards the provision allowing a court to order a service provider–essentially an unwitting middleman–to take all 'technically feasible and reasonable measures' to block an infringing site”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011).

The gray area of accountability that we read about a few weeks ago, in relation to the Anti-Muslim Youtube video, emerges again when analyzing online copyright laws. Who is ultimately held responsible? Why should Internet-related companies decide between freedom of speech and/or copyright infringement (vs. the government)? If the private sector is expected to assume new roles and responsibilities, how can companies truly play this role, in terms of time, resources, and judgment calls? ''“The burden of reviewing user-submitted content – every blog post, every video, every image – would be impossible for a company to manage, and companies would have likely stuck with the Web 1.0 model of publishing edited, vetted content instead of moving to a Web 2.0 model where users create the content”'' (Zuckerman and Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, 2012).

As a final thought, I’d like to second the statement above, by Asellas. I agree that the balance between copyright and free speech is an interesting controversy. I also agree with your final statement, illustrating the true definition of copyright protection, i.e., copyright defends original expression that merits protection under the U.S. legal system. The complexity and associated controversies surrounding “original expression” are ubiquitous—there are many “shapes and sizes” of original expression, which in many ways, makes this current debate so challenging to decipher. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:24, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Super Bust and The In Rem Forfeiture paper presented further disturbing evidence of the disconnect between how the internet operates and how it is governed. It seems to me that the judges may not have understood that the domain names were property with potential income streams attached, and that the crimes they were accused of were commercial and non-urgent. I'd like to think that because the alternative seems so much more disturbing. Possibly again I am being naive. I have seen those forums, though not the chat rooms, and I agree, that if you are looking for a quick way to stream or download free movies, books, music and TV shows, you'll find plenty there to help you. I was interested to learn that these discussions were protected by the First Amendment, I think I'd just assumed that there were too many of them to shut down. I am, however, coming around to believe that something effective should be done about the piracy of these works. We have, over the last ten years or so, seen a tremendous transfer of value from the movie studios and music publishers to those willing to download illegally. It seems to me it is time to capture that value and account for it. I think, if I thought about it at all, I justified arguing against devoting law-enforcement to controlling piracy to the assumption that these companies were shifting revenue outside the U.S. to avoid taxes. I think I found it distasteful that they would then turnaround and insist that we, the public, help them capture lost income. (I certainly am not willing to pay the taxes to support jail time for those downloading content illegally.) I understand that many people who download without purchasing would not purchase, as many who stream without paying would also not purchase. I do believe though, that they would do something else, and I'm wondering if we are capturing that aspect accurately. I'm also wondering if somehow, we were able to capture that value, it might pay for some or all of the needed up-grade to our internet infrastructure. [[User:Raven|Raven]] 15:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-12T20:47:54Z

Asellars: /* Readings/Watchings */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-12T20:38:29Z

Asellars: /* Readings/Watchings */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-12T20:17:47Z

Asellars: /* Readings/Watchings */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-12T20:17:26Z

Asellars: /* Optional Readings */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2013-03-12T20:14:19Z

Asellars: /* Readings/Watchings */

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T17:40:48Z

Asellars:

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 12'''

Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which 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 class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Special guest speaker this week is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], a project coordinator here at Berkman who runs [http://chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [http://www.chillingeffects.org/about About] and peruse the [http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi weather reports].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

'''Case Study: SOPA/PIPA'''
:* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]
:* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

'''Case Study: ISP "Six Strikes"'''
:* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, On The Media, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information]
:* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

Google's decision concerning the horrific video posted in Matthew Ingram', Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters, raises an interesting question. Google has now assumed the role of immediate arbiter in terms of determining what is and is not copyright infringement. I understand the point that the student who took the video at the NASCAR event created his own copyrighted document when he created the video, but NASCAR's counter, that it had a contractual right to the content of the video pursuant to the valid contract on the ticket the customer purchased would seem to have some merit to it. Google in accepting the customer's rights over NASCAR's contractual rights has effectively made a legal decision that will cause brand damage to NASCAR. I can see how NASCAR could claim these damages against Google in a suit.
I suppose this is just another example of how powerful Google has become in determining what average Westerner's will see on the internet. A quick Google search for the word 'nude' will have google proffering you thousands of images and videos of porn, which is easily accessible by minors. Google IS the way that we all access the internet, given its prevalance in our lives I'd be surprised if the government doesn't create more formality in Google's decision making processes with regards to copyright, freedom of speech, protection of minors, and all sorts of other legal issues that Google is now deciding for society. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks again for the great comments, Josh. The specific question about the validity of any "back of the ticket" attempt to assign copyright is an interesting one. My read on it, based on [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 this section] of the Copyright Act, would be that a total assignment to NASCAR would be invalid in the United States, as assignment of copyright requires a signed writing. This applies only to ''assignment'' however, (i.e., a total transfer of copyright ownership, which in the US would also mean the loss of rights in the original videographer). It could be that this ticket grants NASCAR a non-exclusive license to use the video, but the copyright owner would remain the videographer - meaning both that the original videographer would have the right to post the video on YouTube and NASCAR would not have standing to assert copyright in a lawsuit or through the DMCA. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

I find the legislation and history on copyright law and infringement extremely confusing. It seems as if SOPA and PIPA would have completely negated major aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I share the belief that the propositions of those bills would have limited innovation. Had SOPA/PIPA have passed, I think the case of Vietnamese accessing Facebook shows that there exists markets in foreign regions that will engage in illegal means of accessing those domain names. I also was interested in the "backdoor" that sites like youtube have for content providers to remove infringed material. What other "backdoors" exist regarding copyright law and content infrastructure? [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 18:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:That's a really good point, Aaron. Thanks for mentioning it. You should definitely ask Adam about the YouTube ContentID system that they have used as an overlap to the DMCA, and what sort of problems he's seen in its implementation. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

As we study copyright, it is important to note that copyright and in fact all intellectual property laws ... patents, trademarks, trade secrets along with copyrights are in fact limitations of free speech. But the latter is not open and unlimited. Free speech has been called the core all truly democratic nations. What qualifies as a democracy is but another issue difficult if not impossible to determine depending on the definition and myriad of points of view. One estimate is 132. Regardless, given there are an estimated 350-500 million Internet users in China alone, more than every man, woman and child in United States combined, designing and controlling an Internet as a vehicle for democratic nations alone will guarantee it will reach less than half of the world's population. But even in so-called democracies free speech is not unlimited. It is qualified and limited by the need for national securities and compelling interests, the the universal rather than the individual interest, moral fiber, sensititivity, defamatory laws and the damages that can often occur by uncontrolled exposure and disclosure of information that can do more damage than good. Some control is necessary to maintain order and prevent a disorganized free for all in an attempt to exercise free speech which many do only to exercise the principal and fight to assert their own freedom of expression, regardless of the consequences.

Intellectual property laws are intended to reward those who have created things with the sweat of their brow, the absence of which will quell any incentive and to enrich the social. Without intellectual property laws mankind over the last few ages of the Industrial and now Information Revolutions would have been relegated to pre-18th century technological, communication and transportation breakthroughs. Art and science would have been inhibited. So what is needed is a proper balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:05, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

:The balance between copyright and free speech is a fascinating one. There are two [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 very significant] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Golan+v.+Holder&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=3239612723066820072&scilh=0 Supreme Court cases] on point - and in general the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that copyright itself does not violate the First Amendment (Justice O'Connor in another case famously called it the "engine of free expression"), but only as long as it includes the "traditional contours" or fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy. While this does mean as a practical matter that substantive challenges to copyright laws will not win in US courts, we tend to impose ''procedural'' protections for categorically unprotected speech that had a serious role to play in the SOPA/PIPA debate, as well as "Operation in our Sites" mentioned in the additional reading. As to whether copyright is meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," I think that it certainly informs the desire to make copyright laws, but we know from [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Fesit+v.+Rural&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=1195336269698056315&scilh=0 other Supreme Court precedent] that labor alone is not enough to obtain copyright protection in a work - it is instead the contribution of original expression that merits protection under the American system. Thanks for sharing! [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 09:33, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The DCMA and Safe Harbor Act seem a useful alterternative to the report of Germany blocking for example the meteor video from Russia because there was music playing faintly in the background. Being able to post that you do not own the copyright, make no money off of it, and simply are posting for entertainment is a very familiar story on YouTube when perusing for videos. The NASCAR accident video seems a matter of due diligence so they could protect themselves from liability from the victims claiming NASCAR did not try to stop people videoing their injuries while on NASCAR property during an event. The Slung Lo example showed me the difficulty of implementing copyright infringement in court when not represented by a large company, as the commentary on the Copyright Alert System and Six Strikes alluded to and in other commentaries online regarding Six Strikes weaknesses. SOPA and PIPA I understand wish to protect property, but how many people have links to copyrighted material? On YouTube, Facebook, and blogs? What if you send a copyrighted link by email? SOPA and PIPA would send a chilling effect throughout the internet that would actually drive down the amount of internet use. CAS would keep track of violations, and a user would have to be so careful to not get six strikes as employers could access who is some type of "criminal" copyright infringer according to a extra-judicial body such as CAS. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately, those who wish to profit off of internet content and sharing must post some type of copyright mark on their creation that says to all users with a symbol, this can never be shared without permission, for any reason. However, when one enters the public space, one has to understand that some type of sharing and infringement of ideas is going to occur for non-profit reasons. This should be encouraged. Perhaps the line should only be drawn when content is used for profit. In any case, if one puts out material publically for their own gratification, one should expect that it is going to be copied. If one wishes to protect those creation rights, a bundle of legal rights through copyright law is already available through access to the courts, without over regulating the internet that is literally opening an entire new world to a global population that has lived in isolation for too long.
[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 03:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

The First Amendment is an American legal concept,albeit free speech is global. Intellectual property rights are infringements on free speech, albeit necessary to accomplish the purposes of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets which are to encourage advancements in the arts and scientists while assuring and creating incentives for those who create new ideas and products. The antithesis of organization and control is total independence and free will. If there are not safeguards in place to organize and monitor free speech chaos will follow. I think it was once said that more deaths and injuries have been caused by the written and spoken word than all the guns every made.

On last week's discussion board I posted my comments on this subject in ore depth, so I will not repeat them here, other than to again empathize that free speech is part of global communication that the Internet provides and all societies do not welcome it with open arms so if we are to get the rest of the world to coordinate the great potential of the Internet, we need to compromise even our most cherished personal right.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 08:18, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

While I am all in favour of free speech, I guess I have to add - "to a point".
In the article about the Nascar video being reinstated, it seemed to be touted as some great victory for copyright and free speech that it was re-released after being pulled. Here is my issue with that and all other like situations. What about the right of the victim (or any individual) that has been hurt or worse and is then immortalized on video or in pictures trapped under a burning tire etc. In the interests of full disclosure, a member of my family was killed in a serious car accident which resulted in a building partially falling on top of his vehicle. It was bad enough to see the pictures of the car after he had been pulled out, but I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be the relative of that person and see pictures of him. Freedom of speech is a gift and a wonderful thing, but in this age of instant pictures and video should we not be more sensitive to the lives attached (specifically) to tragedy? What good does it do in the broader debate about freedom when the rights of the individual, who may not be able to speak for themselves, are not consulted. I suggest that maybe that isn't freedom of speech as much as sensationalism although I am sure others would argue differently. Life seems to swing in a pendulum. Maybe my descendants will move back to a more closed society if one major event that I can't project pushes the value system of the majority to say enough. I'm not sure and I would welcome any comments. [[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 09:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline

:That's a great point, Caroline. We'll be turning to privacy in more depth in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/Privacy April]. The decision to post something like that or not is certainly one that has some precedent - and every time there is a horrific event captured on camera there are extensive discussions concerning whether it should be posted. And, for what it's worth, YouTube does reserve the right in its [http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines community guidelines] to regulate those things on its end - that said, we've already seen and will see again the weaknesses in relying on intermediary censorship to solve content issues. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

::I, too, was going to make Caroline's point regarding the treatment of the footage of a violent injury or death. It seems to me that the fact that it depicts somebody's death would be sufficient justification to take the video down, assuming their was nothing newsworthy about the incident. Are we really surprised that Nascar driving is dangerous? Do we need to see someone's grisly and gruesome death for evidence? Wouldn't words suffice? Doesn't Google through YouTube get to determine what they do and do not host on their servers? Are we confusing editing and good taste with censorship?[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:17, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:::This is a small point, but I don't think the video actually depicts a person's death. There were a few serious injuries in the crash, but no one was killed. (At least my search of the news finds no such reporting.) And while the crash is troubling to watch (we certainly aren't requiring you to watch it, but it is embedded in the article for today's reading), it also is highly informative. The public outcry from the NASCAR video's wide circulation resulted in [http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/02/23/huge-car-crash-mars-nationwide-series-race-at-daytona/1941529/ reform to spectator conditions at NASCAR events]. Would words have sufficed? Possibly. And is Google serving as the ultimate arbiter right now? Definitely. But there are scores of examples in our history of when it took the world seeing a horrific situation in order to motivate action, so regardless of who makes the decision there are compelling reasons on both sides for having it disseminated or not. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:40, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Interesting reading for today’s class. In my view, the right to a free speech is the right to express ones’ thoughts without any alternative censorship by the government. But main questions are: does the first amendment protect imply the right to hear the speech? The Copyright Clause itself is an expressional of First Amendment values that powers congressional rights under free speech principle. How to treat unexceptional impulse of copyright that embraces the coherence of the First Amendment? Copyright law includes a number of free speech accommodations that requires a scheme of originality, but what are the principles of copyright legislation? In my view, the questions should bot be whether the challenged law is consistent with unchallenged laws but instead whether the challenged law is consistent with the Copyright Clause (whereas consistency also comes with a priority of values). Intersection of these domains, have the same values that are conflicting with each other within their constitutional accommodations of law.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

:The First Amendment, as it has been interpreted by the courts, includes within it a degree of a "right to be heard," but that has been limited in most circumstances to making sure that free speech rights are not pyrrhic by being without an audience - it does not generally allow an affirmative right of access to a particular fora other than certain publicly owned spaces (of which the Internet is not one). The degree to which the judiciary will exercise oversight over whether legislative action is consistent with the Copyright Clause is very, very weak, as was established in the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=eldred+v.+ashcroft&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12147684852241107557&scilh=0 same case] I flagged to Rich above. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 11:46, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

Most arguments calling for stronger copyright right enforcement - such as those that support SOPA, PIPA, and the 6-strikes Copyright Alert System - base their argument on the billions of dollars lost to piracy, which itself can be divided to estimate the number of jobs lost in the United States.The two questions I always wonder are: are these numbers being exaggerated by the entertainment industry? And do these numbers truly reflect the real loss of the entertainment industry?

Although what I'm going to say is going to be mainly based on peer observation, I think it's worth noting. For this comment, I'll focus on music. I know people who place a higher value on property rights and insists on buying their music in cd form or from iTunes. These people actually DO view internet piracy as stealing and frown upon it. But I shall be honest and point out that these people also have more leisure money to purchase what they want.

On the other hand, I have also met people who are taking advantage of the internet to discover and "own" music that they would otherwise not buy if piracy options were not available. These are people who may or may not have had the leisure money, but nevertheless would never have spent money to "own" the music if piracy was not an option in the first place.

Then there are those who have no financial obstacles at all but argue that it is foolish to spend money when there obviously are ways to get the music freely. I think this group can be divided into those who would buy music if there was no piracy option and those who would not have spent money in the first place.

I really wonder if ideas like the Copyright Alert System would really boost the earnings of the entertainment industry (which is their true objective after all) or whether in the end these systems end up throttling the internet and the principles, such as free speech, that we think the internet should stand for.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 11:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

****

After reading the article ''A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement'', one important idea surrounding this topic became clear: we acknowledge copyright infringement when it directly affects us. Many ignore online copyright, because it is often embedded in the actions that people take when using the Internet. In other words, some may be committing illegal acts without realizing it, while others do so purposely. Whether unintentional or intentional, one must contemplate both sides of the copyright law debate: protecting the creator or restricting one’s freedom of speech.

I think one comment in Erin McKeown’s blog captures the essence of the other articles: ''“I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content.”'' Due to the complexity, loopholes, and associated legal processes surrounding copyright infringement, many can often remain unprotected. Some agree and others do not…what do you think?

SOPA’s enactment seems to make this environment even more convoluted. It gives tools to the U.S. Attorney General to combat “foreign infringing sites,” but sites with...''“a domain name registered outside the U.S. seems to count as ‘foreign,’ even if it’s run by an American company and hosted on U.S. soil. Id., at § 101(5)-101(8)”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011). This policy not only places a lot of companies in the line of fire, but it also puts an enormous amount of responsibility in the hands of corporate Executives. ''“The overwhelming controversy regarding SOPA’s public remedies regards the provision allowing a court to order a service provider–essentially an unwitting middleman–to take all 'technically feasible and reasonable measures' to block an infringing site”'' (Zittrain et al., A Close Look at SOPA, 2011).

The gray area of accountability that we read about a few weeks ago, in relation to the Anti-Muslim Youtube video, emerges again when analyzing online copyright laws. Who is ultimately held responsible? Why should Internet-related companies decide between freedom of speech and/or copyright infringement (vs. the government)? If the private sector is expected to assume new roles and responsibilities, how can companies truly play this role, in terms of time, resources, and judgment calls? ''“The burden of reviewing user-submitted content – every blog post, every video, every image – would be impossible for a company to manage, and companies would have likely stuck with the Web 1.0 model of publishing edited, vetted content instead of moving to a Web 2.0 model where users create the content”'' (Zuckerman and Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, 2012).

As a final thought, I’d like to second the statement above, by Asellas. I agree that the balance between copyright and free speech is an interesting controversy. I also agree with your final statement, illustrating the true definition of copyright protection, i.e., copyright defends original expression that merits protection under the U.S. legal system. The complexity and associated controversies surrounding “original expression” are ubiquitous—there are many “shapes and sizes” of original expression, which in many ways, makes this current debate so challenging to decipher. I look forward to hearing other’s thoughts! [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 13:24, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T15:46:36Z

Asellars:

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T13:02:06Z

Asellars:

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-12T13:01:49Z

Asellars:

Copyright Part 2: Enforcement and Balances

2013-03-11T13:33:23Z

Asellars: /* Class Discussion */

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2013-03-06T20:23:07Z

Asellars: Undo revision 9984 by Johnathan Merkwan (talk)

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 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.

Over the next two classes, this course will take up the some of the issues related to copyright protection and enforcement online. Today’s class will focus on the legal regime of copyright: what it protects, what it doesn’t protect, and how the doctrine has transformed in light of digital reproduction and distribution.

'''[https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2013/File:2013-03-05-Copyright1.pdf Download slides for this week's class.]'''

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

The second half of assignment 2 (commenting on prospectuses) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]].

== Readings/Watchings ==

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]

* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics] (read only Who Can Claim Copyright?, What Works Are Protected?, What is Not Protected by Copyright?, How to Secure a Copyright, and How Long Copyright Protection Endures)

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use]

* [http://blip.tv/lessig/it-is-about-time-getting-our-values-around-copyright-2847688 Lawrence Lessig, It is About Time: Getting Our Values around Copyright] (watch first 6 minutes)

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-insane/ James Grimmelmann, Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Video Copyright Went Insane]

* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]

* [http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/Remix_9781849662505/chapter-ba-9781849662505-chapter-0001.xml Lawrence Lessig, ''Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy''] (Introduction only)

* Creative Commons, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/ Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==
===Links From Adobe Connect Class Session===
Letters patent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent

Worshipful company of stationers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers

Press Act 1662: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

Statute of Anne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

First book published in america (in harvard square): "The Whole Booke of Psalmes FaithfullyTranslated into English Metre." http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm004.html

This American Life on Coca Cola's Recipe: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/original-recipe

The monkey that stole the camera from a professional photographer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

There can be copyright interests in architectural works, but generally they wouldn't protect against photography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture

The Mona Lisa with moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

On copyright duration and when different works fall into the public domain: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Fair Use provision in the Copyright Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Amazon 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0

There was a lawsuit over the Amazon-1984 dustup: http://www.pcworld.com/article/172953/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html

Terry Fisher's site with his copyright class: http://tfisher.org/

Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/
===Other Links===
The gloss we're doing in class on the duration of copyright terms is a bit simplified. For a more detailed chart discussing copyright duration, check out the chart developed by [http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Cornell's Copyright Information Center].

== 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:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of Julian Sanchez', Ars Technica, 750,000 Lost Jobs? The Dodgy Digits Behind the War on Piracy. It reads as if it were written by some type of torrent-freak railing against legitimate business, and is about as informative. While his fundamental point that it is hard to quantify the harm copyright piracy does in terms of economic loss and jobs lost is reasonable, he does nothing to argue against the undeniable fact that the United States (and Canada) do lose jobs and money due to the piracy. Sanchez' point "When someone torrents a $12 album that they would have otherwise purchased, the record industry loses $12, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that $12 has magically vanished from the economy. On the contrary: someone has gotten the value of the album and still has $12 to spend somewhere else" is just flat out wrong. It may be valid when an American steals from an American, or a Canadian steals from a Canadian, but it does not apply when a Canadian steals from an American, or more problematically, when China and the rest of the world steal from America. The US trade deficit with China is enormous. This is due in quite a significant part to the fact that we import and pay for enormous amounts of manufactured goods from China, while China imports, but does not pay for enormous amounts of IP from the US and Canada (think fake Apple phones, hacked MS office, every single hollywood movie and song, serious technical data and research). While Sanchez might not want to pay $100 for MS Word or $20 for a movie, he should think twice before accepting the argument that the 6.1 billion people in the rest of the world do not have to pay the US for IP. [[User:Joshywonder|Joshywonder]] 10:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Josh. I'm not sure if Sanchez meant to take on the second question as to how much damage is caused to the American economy by piracy. As to the "$12" discussion you mentioned, I agree that Sanchez is being a bit too fast and loose here, but I think what he is driving at is more macroscopic: that the presence of downloading for consumption of works doesn't have a substantial impact on the discretionary spending budgeted by citizens in America – the same amount of money is being spent, it is just being reallocated. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do know that studies that have looked at the microeconomic dimension of that – that is, whether each download should be valued as a lost sale – have suggested largely that it does not. Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have the [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/ec106/strumpf.pdf most famous examination on point] (and their study has [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 its critics]), but other studies done by [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?_r=4& Wharton] and others have reinforced the general point. My point in including in today's reading was not to suggest that the RIAA is wrong and that Sanchez is right; it is rather to highlight the fact that we are trying to legislate in an area that is famous for a lot of hyperbolic talk and little empirical analysis. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 12:16, 5 March 2013 (EST)

::Andy - That's useful background. I do believe Joshywonder's point is an important one. Having lived in a country (briefly) in which powerful anti-U.S. forces are a component of the government, and frequently finding U.S. movies on the street with sophisticated packaging materials for @$1, it was hard not to come to the conclusion that a little bit of economic warfare was occurring. People used their (hard to get) European student and travel visas for copious copying of US programming and would distribute these free among friends (think in terms of hours or days of constant downloading and in terms of multiple seasons of multiple TV shows), and you could understand why they were willing to do this because US programming was expensive to get and came from outside this country, and also because US movies and TV shows purchased legally were insanely expensive. Most of us living there on US salaries and with housing and food subsidies were living quite well, but when I went to legally purchase a movie as a gift, I was astonished at the cost (close to $30 US dollars).
::[[User:Raven|Raven]] 14:14, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:::And of course, you don't even have to go to overseas to see US movies on the street for $1. [http://piracy.americanassembly.org/the-report/ The Social Science Research Council] did a deep dig into it in 2011 and found that the rampant piracy in many countries is attributable to a few different factors, but principally what you flagged: a lack of antipiracy education and the overwhelmingly high cost of local legal alternatives. I would also be remiss not to mention that America's longstanding legacy in the international community was as pirates ourselves – we were very, very slow to recognize international copyright standards (over 100 years late in joining the Berne Convention), and used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_clause all sorts of legal tricks] to inject foreign works into the public domain here. As small anecdotal example, Charles Dickens [http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva75.html very famously railed] against the lack of copyright protection of his works in the United States. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 14:50, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

The Ars Technica article was very intriguing and made me think of the landscape of Internet access with the high fixed costs of transitioning to a fiber optic network. I’m sure that laying cables, etc. was extremely costly (which we have reviewed in previous lectures). However it opened the doors to much greater advancements in technology. I believe that if subsidies were somehow provided to entice companies to build fiber optic networks then the internet may experience a harkening much to the likes of cable television. And with greater technological advancement will surely come greater legal points of contention. I wonder if the legal battle for transmitting copyrighted information will become more heated as technology continues to progress. [[User:AaronEttl|AaronEttl]] 11:51, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

Grimmelman’s article on the madness of the Cablevision case really encapsulated the crux of the copyright debate for me. Grimmelman concludes: “Instead of asking which back-end technologies are legal, it might make more sense to ask what it is legal for users to do with computers on the front end.” An astute point that should be obvious (and I personally loved Grimmelman’s irreverent tone to reinforce this). The protection of copyright is a dense, complicated problem in the digital era, but to make progress, we have to be able to agree on some sensible underlying assumptions. Namely, that “copying” and “performing” is different in the digital world than in the analog world. Consequently 1.) we can't directly apply old copyright regulations to new ones and 2.) we ought to apply copyright regulations as they relate to users’ uses rather than some obscure behind the scenes minutiae.

Reading Grimmelman’s article, I was blown away by the technical intricacies of de-duplicaton, public performance, and what constitutes as a “copy.” Absent from the discussion surrounding Cablevision were issues of user practices, fair use, and rethinking the nature of a digital copy. As Lawrence Lessig points out, the technology with which we access our culture today has changed – copying is ubiquitous in our creative “remix” culture. And so while I think few people fall into the extremes of “abolish copyright altogether” or “preserve everything bout old copyright” it’s important to recognize, as Lessig says of Aaron Swartz’s work, when to recognize “dumb copyright.” I think by focusing too heavily on analog metaphors and technical loop-holes, we do little to combat dumb copyright.

Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:

Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)

****

The prosecution of You Tube videos when a "performance" is uploaded of a toddler dancing to a pop music hit seems to me to be self-defeating and more in the sphere of 20th century thinking, such as when the music industry flailed about trying to stop digital downloads of their music. Times change, and the intellectual property laws that were lobbied for at one time and passed must be re-thought in the digital age. Needless to say, other countries around the world mercilessly copy and sell material such as DVD's of movies and music. This is nothing new, and it has not stopped. Clothing is copied in the same manner. Prosecuting citizens of your own country for enthusiatically promoting a brand for free on You Tube or anywhere else on social media or in person at a non-profit exhibition, or even for profit in a cover performance is to me the worse excess of over regulation. Performers can make money off of live performance instead of through digital sales. A copy of clothing is not the real thing, and those who can afford the real thing would never wear a copy, such as a Rolex on the corner. The customer base is grown through copies, not diminished. The global economy solves that problem. When corporations and laws focus on free trade in the global market and seek their profit points from live performance and pushing related items such as digital memberships for exclusive content, and interaction with the performers and creators of the art, intellectual property law will no longer be grasping at straws attempting to regulate across national lines into another country and have when that fails, go after their own fan base! Profit centers change, and in the digital age regulation and control have a place, but are not a replacement for the free market and competition that is able to flourish on world stage.

[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 13:15, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

Wikipedia's and the U.S. Copyright Office's explanation of copyright made the law seem straightforward and easy to understand. But once the readings and video started tackling the copyright issues in the internet realm, everything became rather confusing. This is partly my fault for not knowing a lot about copyright law, but from what I've read, it seems like the courts (and legislatures?) are also still trying to figure how the copyright system should work in cyberspace.

Is the problem because we're trying to apply a system of laws that was originally developed to regulate mostly ideas fixated on tangible objects (books, cds, records) on a virtual platform? The debate about what kind of "copies" are legal (see e.g. the Ars Technica reading on Video Copyright) result in strange rules/law, as Grimmelmann summarizes: "A million viewers and a million copies—OK. A million viewers but only one copy—not OK."

If the copyright law is interpreted broadly, I think a lot of normal online activity infringes the law. And yet it's so easy to click to a page, save a chunk of text, movie, and/or image one likes, then share it somewhere else, making more and more copies. Are these activities infringing copyright law? It's not fair use, it's more like sharing. In the physical world, I would share a book I like by actually lending it to a friend and not photocopying it because of the hassle; but when applied online, the matter is as simple as a right click of a file, then "copy" then "paste." And the paste can result in tons of copies without much effort.

Perhaps a new system should be created for the internet, instead of just applying the old principles of copyright. Creative Commons is a step in that direction, but the issues dealing with traditional intellectual property (such as music and books published by by brick-and-mortar businesses) going online still aren't solved.

I think Lawrence Lessig made an important point reminding his audience that the purpose of copyright law isn't supposed to make money for the rights holder, although that's a nice reward, and there are business models built around that (e.g. the music and movie industry). Rather, the purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create an environment that fosters creativity and discussion. Any thinking on how copyright should apply to the internet should keep these goals in mind.

--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I found the video Creative Commons very inspiring. This video really harnessed my view on the globalization of technology. The view that sharing content can advance education, technology, medicine, just to name a few areas is not new. While most countries and companies hold their intellectual property close to their chest and will fight tooth and nail to take anyone down who infringes on it, we should evolve as a culture to allow for a shared space. This shared space could provide the insight to allow for advancement rather than stagnation. One little binary code, or biological sequence can inspire another individual to change the world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 06:35, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

The readings this week are well balanced: past, present, and future. The overview about Limitations on Exclusive Rights (17 USC § 107) and Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works (17 USC § 106) sets the stage for copyright regulations, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. The examples in the other articles draw attention to present-day legal debates, such as Internet streaming (i.e., the son of cable). And, the Creative Commons (CC) video/article, is a segue to the future of copyright regulation and knowledge transfer. From my perspective, the future outlook is an interesting scenario to consider.

During the first month of this course, we've learned that the boundaries surrounding online regulation and sovereignty are complex. Online copyright follows suite. Literary, musical, dramatic arts, choreographic works, and motion pictures, among the other forms of communication (outlined in 17 USC § 106) are continuously shared, yet who becomes the ultimate online police? Much like freedom of speech, it seems almost impossible to define the boundaries of copyright infringement in cyberspace. When intellectual capital (IC) is shared without approval, where is the line drawn? From the standpoint of last week’s “third-party provider articles,” the stakeholder web appears even more convoluted. IC passes from hand to hand, server to server, website to website. Who assumes accountability?

CC is interesting because it opens the door for knowledge sharing, and anyone can participate. It promotes “creativity, collaboration, and access.” I personally like the mission stated in the video: ''CC moves away from content control and thinks in terms of communications, bringing communities together through open-ended collaboration.'' This concept is in-line with the “online freedom of speech argument,” promoting creativity as a means to become more united. Creating and sharing within an online global community generates different outcomes versus building legal walls (i.e., copyright restrictions).

What do others think about the CC-form of communication and expression? Can this collaborative concept dominate the web, or will restrictions trump open-ended communication? Are there parallel online communities that mirror the Creative Commons’ concept? [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 11:22, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I really enjoyed reading material for today’s lecture, however the main question arises as to why can’t we apply the laws of intellectual property in a simple and coherent manner? In my view, the law of copyright seems to be falling apart, while restricting the information that can change the world and [could] alter the research and development of new and improved results of diverse frameworks. What about community? How can we share intellectual information if it’s so drastically protected? The article of Grimmelmann portrays an interesting view of copyright of video industry, which has its own architecture of copyright law (fees for Netflix and hulu as an example), however, how about those individuals/countries that cannot afford the copyright [fees] conditions? While watching the video about Creative Commons on A Shared Culture, I was definitely inspired about the comments that were made, which I completely agree with. I believe that laws do get in the way; furthermore, a shared community must exist (and it does at some extend) in order for diverse societies to be able to adapt by the laws, which must portray a source of freedom within creative and intellectual spectrums.
[[User:User777|user777]] 11:44, 5 March 2013 (EST)

***

Wikipedia gave a brief and general description of the Copyright clause of the US Constitution, the history and origin of the copyright language and its effects. I've come to expect a bit more out of the Wikipedia community and was a bit surprised that there wasn't more content on it, especially considering the controversial nature of copyright laws.

The first six minutes of the Lessig speech and his first point - the elephant in the room - seemed to me to neglect the idea that while the Internet is a place where massive amount of information is available virtually, the same information is still available through more traditional means and in physical form. This point is important because much of the world has access to traditional (i.e. pre-online) access to information and do not need to violate copyright law in order to access it. The counterpoint to my point would obviously be that much of the world does not have access to traditional forms of information and the Internet is their best and only means to obtain such information. However, I think it remains important to point out that convenience should not be a justification, in and of itself, to tear down copyright laws.

Finally, I struggle to understand the perspective those who are hostile towards the very existence of any copyright law. Copyright law protects the motivation and incentive for profit-seeking institutions to create and help advance the world by offering more choices, whether the purposes of their products or services are educational, entertainment, scientific or other purposes. It is true that those with altruistic motivations (i.e. those who create for the purposes of the proverbial "greater good" of society or the world) can and have made major contributions, but to ignore the value in protecting intellectual property of profit-seekers and those who want to protect what they create for any other purposes, will remove the incentive for a massive portion of the creative world to continue to produce.

[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks, Ralph. If you're still hungry for more reading about the Copyright Clause and its history, I would strongly recommend Dotan Oliar's [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ip/oliar_ipclause.pdf The Origins and Meanings of the Intellectual Property Clause]. His is probably the leader in the space about what was going on in the Framers' minds when the clause was drafted. And I wouldn't presume to speak for Lessig, but he has been rather insistent throughout all of his scholarship that he is not a copyright abolitionist. The question for him (and for me, and for many, many legal scholars out there) is not the whether, but the how – what is the appropriate calibration of rights and limitations that would afford authors sufficient (and appropriate) compensation for their works, while also allowing the general public sufficient freedom to expand and build upon existing works in order to further our scientific and artistic progress.[[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:56, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

This week at the computer was pure ecstasy. I love the articles that we read for class and the informative nature of this material. The copyright problem as exasperated with the current issues is probably the most interesting thing ever. So, when I went to that site called Creative Commons, I felt like the world was lifted off by back. I sat in front of my computer and was elated. Then, I realized that the articles listed there were open copyright copyrights and basically send up the idea that the whole situation there is just about as fabulous as a Project Runway show where intelligent designers get their ideas stolen by people with more intellectual capital. So regardless as this is, the differing platforms and the differing modes of media interpretation, show how people online can steal eachother's ideas, even if not the spellcheck. So this weeks readings left me in a tizzy about lecture today and I know that regardless of this exoneration of say, multiple cycles of cyclical group therapy, aka communism, that the internet is certainly a place I will continue to play on for years to come. Thank you for you time. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:49, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

I thought this was a good basic overview of copyright law and the Creative Commons license. However I would have liked a bit more background (thanks for providing the link) on current copyright law, and a bit more critique on the Creative Commons licenses. I found a Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, on the Creative Commons license that contained some links to critical voices. I also found a paper that went a bit into who is using the licenses and how they are using them herehttp://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-1/coates.asp. The author of the article, Jessica Coates, was the Project Manager at the Creative Commons Clinic at Queensland University of Technology at the time the paper was written. The Creative Commons website contains a list of articles here:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Scholarship_and_critique_regarding_Creative_Commons

According to the Creative Commons website, this is the current breakdown of usage, charts are available on the site. See the site for how the data was gathered and the caveats on usage) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics
"These charts show a breakdown of the types of licenses deployed and the properties of deployed licenses, based on Yahoo! queries as of 2006-06-13. (As above the Google API is now superior for an aggregate count, but Yahoo link: searches are superior for measuring the relative deployment of specific licenses and thus specific license types.)"

by: 96.6%

nc: 67.5%

nd: 24.3%

sa: 45.4%

Finally, knowing little more about current copyright law and use then can be found in this class and in the media, one of the critiques mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Creative Commons had me wanting to know more:

"Péter Benjamin Tóth asserts that Creative Commons' objectives are already well served by the current copyright system, and that Creative Commons' "some rights reserved" slogan, as opposed to the "all rights reserved" principle, creates a false dichotomy. "Copyright provides a list of exclusive rights to the rightholder, from which he decides which ones he wishes to 'sell' or grant and which to retain. The 'some rights reserved' concept is therefore not an alternative to, but rather the very nature of classical copyright." The link for this quote is here:^ Tóth, Péter Benjamin (2009). Creative Humbug. Indicare Project http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=118

I suppose the response to this argument is that one would have to track the creator down and request permission for use, whereas the Creative Commons license allows this info to be embedded by machine language and carried across the web with the material, but without digging into the articles on the Creative Commons website and elsewhere on the web, I really don't know enough (and obviously, I'd like to) to have an opinion on whether or not the Creative Commons licenses are truly a solution to the problem to which tonight's readings point.

[[User:Raven|Raven]] 13:03, 5 March 2013 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing that, Raven. We will (time permitting) be digging into the limitations of the Creative Commons solutions tonight, but I do appreciate you flagging them here as well. More criticism can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons#Criticism here]. I'd note that much of the modern criticism around Creative Commons (especially as version 4.0 of the licenses is soon to be deployed) is not based on the premise, but on the execution – wondering whether and to what extent the licenses may develop inconsistencies or may be incompatible with other open source licenses (such as the GNU FSF or MIT licenses). My response to Tóth would begin with what you flagged already – that it would be impossible to actually track down each specific user to secure the rights to do many things online. Tóth is correct that the rights granted under copyright (for the most part) are optionally enforceable, but there's a big difference in execution between deciding whether to exercise that option in the moment and communicating to the world that you can use this affirmatively. As to whether it "erodes" copyright, another popular criticism, perhaps most famously brought by ASCAP, I personally don't find much credence in it. Creative Commons very much depends on copyright in order to work, as enforcement for violation of a CC term (e.g., using CC-BY-NC works for commercial purposes, or CC-BY works without attribution) would be an action for copyright infringement. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Katzer only major US case addressing open licenses] used this to find liability for violation of the GNU GPL. And by empowering authors to decide for themselves work-by-work the fundamental choice remains with the party who – as Tóth said – is empowered always under copyright law to make the choice. [[User:Asellars|asellars]] 13:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

As a nonphysical and interactive medium, the internet alters concepts of ownership, reproduction, and exchange. On the internet, people can can claim others' media and ideas much more subtly than in the physical world. Technologies that aggregate massive amounts of content, such as Google and Wikipedia, strip owners of control over their work . As Lessig argues, the internet has changed the way we interact with out culture, and thus, necessitated revision of how culture creators establish ownership. While less prohibitive licenses such as the Creative Commons have developed, these new terms of ownership do not mitigate the disconnect between content creators and online users/viewers. Not just copyright law must change, but also internet users' awareness of copyright law in of online work they hope to use. On the creators end, while uploading content, they should be able to designate copyright preferences. At the user endpoints, perhaps web browsers could have a feature that allows users to view the specified copyright of web content elements, similar to the web inspector tool. If there were more apparent ways for users and creators to interact with copyright, I wonder whether this would constrain accessibility to and sharing of information. EDIT: Well, just learned in class that this search function with meta-tags does indeed exist! Cool. [[User:Jax|Jax]] 13:17, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

Lessig's article is an illustration of the aggressive silliness of intellectual property laws in the age of arbitrary replication. The conference by the state of monopolies on the creations of its citizens imputes a kind of religious reverence for intellectual labor as such that is totally unwarranted, particularly in view of the particular technical characteristics of the Internet. UMG is no more responsible for the existence of its artists' works than was James Joyce for the authorship of Ulysses; as cultural products, both represent the final outputs of endlessly old systems of replication, deletion, and signification between people and institutions. The notion that "creators" are imbued with particular rights and prerogatives on account of their proximity and behavioral involvement in cultural inventions promotes a peculiar brand of neurologically illiterate creationism.
[[User:Johnfloyd6675|Johnfloyd6675]] 17:25, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

Lessig's article very much reminded me of a peice written by Adam Ludwin, venture capitalist focused on early stage finacing. The article is entiled The Age of the Meme (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/09/the-age-of-the-meme/ ) In it he writes "We are an always-on culture now. Social networks have reached critical mass. Inexpensive tools for creating and remixing content have been widely adopted. Our collective consciousness has come online. The intelligence in the system is now coming from below, not above. The sage on the stage is no more. And our collective mind is pumping out memes that are shaping every conceivable domain" We're creating culture from the bottom up not the top-down. The hive mind cycles through and collects inofrmation and spits out new beats of culture faster than any design firm or ad agency ever could These peices which " go viral;" have a histroy un to their own. Cultural relevence for fleeting and passing moments. Who do these artifacts eally belong to? Is an image when captured by the hive mind still the property of its owner? How about a piece of music sampled in a youtube clip? Do the owners of Grumpy Cat own the image of grumpy cat? At what point does surrendering something to the internet mean giving it up as celebrities give up some of their writes as private individuals when entering the spotlight? The internet after all is a giant copying machine. Lessig talks about unintended casualties. I hope our freedom to create, rehash, redesign, copy paste, delete, morph, mash isn't one of them. [[User:Alybarbour|Alybarbour]] 16:42, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****

Here is pic of the monkey that hi-jacked the camera!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FahGRKZ6vL4/T51NeFxZPII/AAAAAAAATXk/quOXJ0_NtEQ/s1600/pic.jpg

[[User:Phildade|Phildade]] 18:36, 5 March 2013 (EST)

****