Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application: Difference between revisions

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ClassCalendar}}
{{ClassCalendar}}


'''March 5'''
'''February 25'''


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.
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.
Line 11: Line 11:
== Assignments ==
== 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]].
The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due ''before class'' today. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|here]]. Please note that we have updated the [[Final_Project#Frequently_Asked_Questions|final project page's FAQ section]] based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.


== Readings/Watchings ==
== Readings/Watchings ==
; The mechanics of copyright law


* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Wikipedia, Copyright Clause]
Line 20: Line 22:


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


* [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://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://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]
; Copyright solutions
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKm96Ftfko Creative Commons, A Shared Culture] (video, watch all) and [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 Spectrum of Rights]


* [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/08/there-is-no-magic-bullet/ Terry Hart, There is No Magic Bullet]
* [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)
* [http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce: Internet Policy Task Force, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy] (Executive summary only)
 
* [http://www.copyright.gov/docs/next_great_copyright_act.pdf Maria Pallante, The Next Great Copyright Act] (skim Section II (323-339) only)
 
:* Maria Pallante is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights Register of Copyrights] for the United States.


* 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]
== Recommended Readings ==


== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQVBmKsVhI Lewis Hyde, Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership] (video, watch from 2:12 to 24:37)


* [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read] (introduction and Sections I and II only)
* [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]
* [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]
* [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)


</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
Line 41: Line 56:


== Links ==
== Links ==
===Links From Adobe Connect Class Session===
Ecclesiastical courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_court
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
Stationers Company: 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
1662 press act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662


Statute of Anne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Statute of Anne: http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/statueofanne.pdf


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
Harvard on President Dunster: http://www.harvard.edu/history/presidents/dunster


This American Life on Coca Cola's Recipe: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/original-recipe
Text of US Constitution: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf


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
Useful article doctrine: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.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
LPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_record


The Mona Lisa with moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
Gramophone Records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record


On copyright duration and when different works fall into the public domain: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Lawsuits about sampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling


Fair Use provision in the Copyright Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Girl Talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)


Amazon 1984 story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0
eldred v ashcroft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft


There was a lawsuit over the Amazon-1984 dustup: http://www.pcworld.com/article/172953/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html
Joseph Story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story


Terry Fisher's site with his copyright class: http://tfisher.org/
Campbell v Acuff-Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.


Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/
Legality of Dumb Starbucks: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-dumb-starbucks-legal-2014-2
===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].
UMG vs MP3.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com


== Class Discussion ==
== 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)
{|class="wikitable" border=3 style="margin: auto; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|align="center"|<big>'''REMINDER'''</big>
|-
|style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"|Your comments must be submitted '''before 4:00PM ET''' on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the [[Class Participation|participation policy]] for more information.
|}
<br/>
<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:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>


: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)
----
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 16:05, 25 February 2014 (EST)
This weeks readings reminded me of a very large error I made 15 years ago. Our firm wrote and published one of the first online instructional books covering how to buy and sell equities online. One of my clients asked if he could take a few of the publications back to China with him, to include video tapes of our partners buying and selling equities live on the internet.  


::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).
All the material was converted into Mandarin within months. We lost everything and literally had no idea how to fix the problem.
::[[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)


****
This is related to an earlier class, but a great article on Wikipedia's bots has just been published on The Verge... [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/18/5412636/this-machine-kills-trolls-how-wikipedia-robots-snuff-out-vandalism This machine kills trolls: How Wikipedia’s robots and cyborgs snuff out vandalism] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 17:53, 19 February 2014 (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)
:What an interesting article! It seems rather shocking to me that users would protest the implementation of bots to patrol vandalism on Wikipedia. One comment cited in the article is that "Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions". This seems like an argument made on principle rather than for practicality's sake. Surely we benefit from these anti-vandalism bots, as Wikipedia would be worthless if people were allowed to make whatever edits they pleased, due to the proliferation of internet trolls. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 16:01, 24 February 2014 (EST)


Aaron you have brought up some important discussion points with your comments. I worked closely analyzing a company Global Crossings (GBLX on the NASDAQ) in the 90's. This company tried to attempt what you are speaking about. They attempted to lay the fiber optic cables throughout the world. Then they hit a road block with the oceans. How can you go and lay cables across the sea, let alone send someone down miles to repair the wire damage caused from a number of issues that arise? This is why the company went out of business. Government subsidies is many people's answer to fund projects. The truth in funding ventures is the market determines what is worth funding or not. Depending on politicians with really no business experience to make the decisions on what to and what not to fund is the problem and has put us in the debt we are currently engulfed in. I am in agreement with you that the copyright issue will become a major debate as technology expands. It will definitely be interesting to watch not only domestically but globally on the ramifications of challenging this IP in the future.[[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 16:57, 12 March 2013 (EDT)


****
----


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.
Regarding Copyright laws, it seems that there are many ambiguities and potential loopholes inherent in the system. How is it acceptable for musicians to freely perform "covers" of popular songs-- oftentimes to the extent that their entire act is merely covers, such as at weddings, corporate events, restaurants, etc.-- yet plays cannot be performed live without the consent of the author/copyright holder? It is not altogether uncommon in these situations for an artist to be paid to perform someone else's work, for the purpose of entertainment. What is the difference, then, between these situations? Based on Grimmelmann's article "Why Johnny can't stream", it appears that there are is an endless string of individuals and companies finding new ways to circumvent the laws, so that new laws must be implemented. Where does this stop? Is this due to rebellion against unfair copyright restrictions, companies merely trying to exploit artists and capitalize on their work, or individuals trying to be greedy or subversive?


Film major side note, here are some brilliant video essays on the subject:  
By the way, has anyone heard about Aereo's progress, and/or where it currently stands in the legal system? I looked it up online and it seems to be taking on members who want to pre-register for the service, though the article was written in August of 2012, so you would think it would be out by now.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 13:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)


Everything is a Remix: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
: I was also curious about where the Aereo case(s) were currently... and happened upon this update published last week (also in arstechnica) "Aereo loses copyright fight, gets banned in 6 states"  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/ and as Comcast/NBC "cuts a deal with Netflix"...as well as potentially merging with Time-Warner, just how "lovely" is that? http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/24/does-netflixcomcast-deal-remove-obstacle-to-twc-merger/  [[User:Psl|Psl]] 11:35, 24 February 2014 (EST)
A Fair(y) Use Tale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo


[[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2013 (EST)
:Great comments! As to "covers" of popular songs, those are not usually free uses, but instead uses that are licensed in ways that most of us don't normally see. As to covers of live music, those are usually handled by blanket licenses from performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) through either the venue or the artist. For recorded covers, there is actually a statutory license in the law which allows the covering band to do this without permission, provided they pay a particular fee per copy sold. (These days most of that is administered through a corporation called the Harry Fox Agency.) And as for Aereo, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/ the Supreme Court has agreed to hear] the appeal from the Second Circuit's case (one of many, as Psl points out), which will in all likelihood set the standard for Aereo's legality nationwide. So we will see! [[User:Andy|Andy]] 16:48, 24 February 2014 (EST)


****
:: But certainly there are artists who are not paying royalties or any sort of licensing fee when they cover a song. Perhaps this is simply because there likely isn't anyone present who will verify that the artist has secured permission? For example, the copyright for "Happy Birthday to You" is owned by Warner/Chappell and therefore, a fee must be paid for any public performance of the song. Nevertheless, it is performed in public daily. How is that navigated by the law? Was Marilyn Monroe technically breaking the law when she sang it in public to JFK?[[User:Castille|Castille]] 23:05, 26 February 2014 (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)
----


****
COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS


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.
Based on the readings, how is it possible for new math textbooks for elementary and high school to claim copyrights when the content has not changed for decades?  Perhaps examples and illustrations and format of presentation used across different textbooks may differ, but the content and concepts taught are essentially the same.  


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."
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 18:19, 24 February 2014 (EST)


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.
:This question drives right to the heart of what is protected vs. unprotected under copyright. We're going to tackle that in some depth tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)


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.
----
NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA


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.
Because of NPOV, all content in Wikipedia need to be copied....and referenced. If one copies everything or extensively from a single source, would it still be legal?  And if one copies from many sources, it is called a work of research?  [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)


--[[User:Muromi|Muromi]] 06:27, 5 March 2013 (EST)
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)


****
:While the question of "is that research" is a complicated one, the particular copyright licenses offered over Wikipedia content are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights here]. It's a bit complicated and depends on the particular media in question, but most adhere to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License Creative Commons CC-BY-SA] license for content, which allows use with attribution back to Wikipedia, provided what you use it for is also licensed under this same open term. We'll talk more about this tonight. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)
:I almost forgot what i wanted to say about Creative Commons.  As online content developer, sometimes we do indeed want certain content to be copied freely for marketing purposes or we felt it should be offered free to certain people, but people dare not distribute such content for us because of copyright infringement.  [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:02, 25 February 2014 (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 article, There is no Magic Bullet, was an interesting read. He talks about the idea of combatting piracy as often being boiled down to: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier" which is problematic. The availability of technology is making piracy a lot easier these days. While, legal options are usually a long and expensive option in most cases. This leaves us at a problem. The emergence of easy and paid websites, like amazon and netflix, worked as a legal alternative instead of piracy but it has not been successful in a world-wide scale so far. I think as long as there is a easy, free alternative, it will often be the first choice for most people, even it is illegal. It doesn't always have to be bad, especially as it relates to creative content like music. Free sharing is often a great opportunity for growth and marketing.  
I'm interested to see how copyright laws and creative content will develop with the advancement of the internet. I wonder if making piracy harder is a viable option at this point without infringing on personal content.  


****
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:56, 24 February 2014 (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.
:It's a great question, and one that we're still trying to explore and understand. The anecdotal evidence we have suggests that countries that offer legal alternatives to piracy have experienced a drop in BitTorrent traffic since those have been made available, but it's near impossible to draw further conclusions off of that single point of data. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)


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?
-----
Reading the Grimmelmann "Why Johnny Can't Stream" article I'm reminded of how the music industry fought so hard against services like Napster, while simultaneously it was the emergence of technology like iTunes--and the consequent unbundling of music tracks from albums--that spelled the end of their industry as they knew it. Similarly, "broadcast" and the gatekeeper model of media distribution is at an end.  While the broadcasters fight services like Aero, the whole idea of DVR (whether in your living room, or in the cloud) is not going to be relevnt in the future: services like Netflix's original content (e.g., House of Cards) and HBO Go, where content will be made available by the content owner itself, disintermediating the cable networks, will be the norm.  In this environment, we won't need a DVR and cable companies won't be relevant.  It seems to me that part of the strategy with services like Netflix original content or HBO Go is twofold: to eliminate their dependence on distribution networks, while also rendering DVRs (and their consequent copyright issues) obsolete. After all, I'd be buying my content by-the-drink from the creator rather than from a distribution network where I have a legitimate reason to copy it and watch at different types or with commercials removed.


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).   
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:58, 24 February 2014 (EST)
----
A separate question: why did the framers consider copyrights/patents important enough to mention in the Constitution? Why not just leave it to Congress to worry about as part of regulating interstate commerce? As Lessig noted in his video, intellectual property law was a very minor concern for anyone prior to the 20th century. The Internet Policy Task Force doc claims that "the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression” but that's stated as an assertion (quoting the Supreme Court) without any explanation. I'm interested in understanding the historical context and what the framers were concerned about.  Thoughts?


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)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:00, 24 February 2014 (EST)


****
:We'll be talking about that in class today, but the Lewis Hyde lecture in the recommended reading (and his book, ''Common As Air'' tackle that at considerable length). [[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:31, 25 February 2014 (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)


***
WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING: 


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.
Simply replicating textbooks into digital format for online accessibility is not good enough for online learning.
Otherwise, all students should be getting A's for math and science just from reading textbooks.  When my staff develops online resources for math, a lot of attention goes into how to engage the student online through interactivity, choreography, and animation.  We also bear in mind how these resources might be used in the classroom.  We incorporate multiple modalities of teaching, learning and self-assessments.  And the skills required for creating an online learning resource are very different from just producing a textbook. We need the teacher or content expert to be able to think like a script-writer, a movie producer, a choreographer, a programmer and an animator, all rolled into one.


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.
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 02:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)


----


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.
PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT


[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 11:53, 5 March 2013 (EST)
It is very common to see several websites replicating the same information word-for-word.  This makes internet searches very inefficient and frustrates internet users trying to do research on the web.  Search robots should be used to warn website owners to remove such content.


: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)
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)


Ralph what are your thoughts on creating a universal international copyright law? The problem with copyright law is if you establish a copyright or IP in the US, Australia, and the EU and then someone in Korea is infringing on that copyright there is really little you can do. The entity infringing is usually a shell company that can be closed or shifted to another jurisdiction. Until these loopholes are closed with the use of multi layered corporate structures and registered agents it will be tough to make copyright law have the weight that it really needs to have in this 21st century shared IP world. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 17:15, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
----


HOW ONE COUNTRY CIRCUMVENTS THE COPYRIGHT PROBLEM IN DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE POOR


****
The copyright protects the earnings of the author and publisher and ensures that each copy of the book contributes a return to their investment.  But the poor has no money.  How can a country distribute knowledge to the poor?  The Indian Ministry of Education seems to have authored their own content and made these academic content available online for free.


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)
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:57, 25 February 2014 (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
Smartphones have also helped citizens in being able to access the internet without a broadband home internet connection. Estimates claim that 56% of Americans now have smartphones and this has helped to significantly bridge the gap domestically.


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
http://techland.time.com/2013/08/26/for-some-without-home-broadband-smartphones-bridge-the-gap/ 
"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%
It appears that part of my last posting was cut off, but I am glad to see the Ichua brought up the issue of distribution of knowledge to the poor.  It is honorable that the Indian Ministry of Education has taken steps to make this knowledge available online for free; yet, the impoverished may still be unable to access the internet in general.  The "digital divide" has caused many third world nations without access to internet to fall further behind in global standing both academically and economically.  Furthermore, within the United States, less fortunate communities with little access to internet are falling behind and some have argued this has contributed to educational dilemmas as resources on the internet are inaccessible to them as opposed to traditional textbook instruction.  On the other hand, the internet has worked wonders in affording students like us to be enrolled in a course and dialogue with each other from across the nation (and world).  Philanthropists, humanitarians, and good Samaritans alike have taken matters into their own hands to bridge the gap.  The power of the internet has transformed social work as evidenced by the 2013 CNN Person of the Year, Estella Pyfrom, in her creation of a "Brilliant Bus" computer lab (on wheels) to tutor and service low-income communities:


nc: 67.5%
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/2013.heroes/estella.pyfrom.html


nd: 24.3%
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:20, 26 February 2014 (EST)
   
     
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:25, 25 February 2014 (EST)


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:
CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS


"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
This is a cool software which I started to use a decade ago: http://www.smartsound.com
You can specify the duration of the desired type of music and it will auto-generate the royalty-free soundtrack.


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:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:22, 25 February 2014 (EST)


[[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)
NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT


****
New versions of software such as PhotoShop, Maya, and CrazyTalk, are now more powerful, user friendly and cost much less than a decade ago which enables the user to quickly create high quality original images, textures, scenes, and animations.  This gives artists more incentives to exercise their own creativity and avoid copying from other sources.


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)
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)


****
:Everyday millions of videos are uploaded to the servers of YouTube and responsible for assessing whether or not they are in accordance with the rules of copyright is the ContentID. The tool was created by Google to analyze the productions in search of pieces of audiovisual works protected by copyright. The record labels and movie studios send copies of their original works and the system compares numerous excerpts with what is being shared on the network to find illegal copies on site. When the system finds a similarity between the video posted by a user with videos available in a database registered in the ContentID , the rights holders are notified and must decide what will be done. Some options are: block the video, leave it mute or unavailable; monetize by displaying ads and inserting the video link to the original owner of the content , or even track it views with the statistics being computed only on who Analytics own the copyright on the work. http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_copyright gisellebatista


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.
::Great point, Giselle! We're going to talk about the "private ordering" around copyright (and the issues that come up there) with Adam Holland from Chilling Effects next week. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:53, 25 February 2014 (EST)
[[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)
Outside of doubling down on the penalties for copyright infringement, we seem to gather very little cooperation for addressing the challenges of digital copyright. Any solution proposed with direct enforcement appears to cut corners with due process. Let's have the ISP's monitor and throttle back activity. However, ISPs lack the skill set and capability to interpret copyright law and adjudicate penalties. Increased inspection and examination of content brings about a level of surveillance that most users are uncomfortable with in their digital travels.  
[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:12, 25 February 2014 (EST)


****
:Some of these hard questions between enforcement and other values will be tackled next week when we discuss the DMCA, SOPA, Six Strikes, and some of the other enforcement ideas floated over the past decade or so. As I've said a few times in this class so far, there are no easy answers here, but I hope we can explore the values at stake. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:59, 25 February 2014 (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)
Copyright infringement in many countries is still not resolved. As a result of infringement the music, films, videos, books and other information can be freely downloaded by users without the appropriate permission of copyright owners. A lot of people event don't know the difference between legal and illegal dissemination of information. This situation also impacts government (for example, tax issues) From my point of view, the reason is that the current legislation in many coutnrties is not enough for internet as it doesn't incorporate the characteristics of Internet. The new methods of protection of copyright should be established with close cooperation of internet providers (for example, blocking th user from access to certain website for several days in cases of infringement of copyrights or financial means as penalties). Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:57, 25 February 2014 (EST))


****
----


The issue of copyright, free speech and so many of the issues on the Internet create a conflict between OUR national mores, ethics, morals and laws and the rest of the world. We continue to be an imperialistic nation, but the net has given everyone equal power as military size, strength and resolve is no longer a benefit or detriment. Everyone, every country can have its say.
It seems as though copyright as a whole is (and must) follow down the same path as online streaming did -- adapt or being adapted by the circumstances. Free online streaming is now legitimatized by the Crackles, etc. of the world. The industry adapted. Of course, that industry issue was based in copyright issues. But it now looks like other forms of copyright issues may have to follow down the same road. I'm thinking in particular of indie artist sampling and uploading material illegally (the control of this was main focus of my prospectus.) [[User:Twood|Twood]] 15:14, 25 February 2014 (EST)


The Internet has become a tug of war between the so-called democratic nations like the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and the closed societies, China, the Arab world, South American and African dictatorships, and still in many ways Russia.  The leader of China in the 1990's stated that when opening a window to let the frssh air in resulting in some flies entering. The Internet is the Information Highway, and these closed societies look at information as the enemy. They rule by segregation, ignorance of the populous, lack of free thought and fear. Free speech is free thought and will upset their apple cart.
----


We need to be able to communicate than force our values on others.  We do not have unlimited free speech, but only enough free speech to allow actions and thoughts that do not interfere with the way the leaders decide their people will act. Obscenity, defamation, insurgency laws limit free speech. So do national and religious interests. Today many informational Internet sites charge fees, some exobitant. Others require registration, exchanging access for information. All of these restrict free speech.
First of all, I would say the article written by James Grimmelmann has opened my eyesight.  
Copyright is a really interesting topic that I would love to look into, especially the copyright on derivative work, in the other words, re-creation. In Hong Kong, the Government has been trying to ban derivative work by enacting a law to restrict people from re-creating.  
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 15:18, 25 February 2014 (EST)


Our Intellectual Property laws are also limitations on free speech. The concept behind intellectual property protections are two-fold: (1) To encourage new thoughts and the advancement of the culture as to the arts and sciences in the society, and (2) To compensate those whose hard word resulted in novel ideas, thoughts and inventions ... without with there is little incentive to create new things.
----
Copyright based laws seemed be to pretty much straight forward until the Internet came along. Actions of recording and copying in cases such as Sony’s debated whether it was legal to record with a VCR and view it later, a process known as "time-shifting". This was protected under a provision of 17 U.S. Code § 107 fair use. But a major problem came with Internet piracy, cited in Terry Harts article, There is No Magic Bullet. He has a simple solution: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier”, but it is not so easy to put into practice. It is an impossible task to scourer the billions upon billions of transactions happening online everyday. It seems that copyright laws have became bogged down by too many technical work-arounds that should be illegal but are technically not. These "protections" ultimately just make the law way more confusing. A large problem is because the laws are not national, Aereo is not legal in New Jersey, but what happens if someone hacks Aereos account from a remote site? Can Aereos still be sued for copyright violation? [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 15:21, 25 February 2014 (EST)


I have used Wikipedia for years, but when I began Assignment1 and was directed not to include any essays that contained original research. I contributed a second article independent of the one I did for the class. It was about the second old road bridge in the United States that has been buried intact for 140 years. It is a great historical treasure here in NJ where it is the oldest bridge.  I was able to confirm its status both nationally and in NJ but reviewing many bridge databases, along with submissions for listings and listings on the National Register of Historic Places.  My efforts were rejected with the rational that since no one else ever wrote about this bridge and Wiki is a site that only edits existing published information, there was no place on it for my efforts. And, they have vague standards what is published and what publishers are allowed. A small publisher or a self publisher in Iowa is not allowed while St. Martins Press in NYC is. 
-------


While I still have great respect for Wikipedia, I am dismayed that it is so restrictive and does not encourage free thought and expression as I thought it did.
From a global perspective, I think that copyright infringement is a bigger problem in developing countries than here in the US. Take, for instance, a country such as Senegal where there are artists, authors, and content creators of kinds. The problem of copyright infringement had become such a serious issue for musicians that they are now turning to the internet (most specifically Google's YouTube) for help. What an irony, right?! The internet used to be and still is the place where a lot of copyright infringements happen due to its hard nature to regulate. However, in countries such as Senegal where musicians are finding it harder and harder to rightfully monetize their work, their "Ministry of Culture," whose head was also a musician, is now encouraging artist to partner with Google in order to distribute and monetize their entire albums on YouTube. As Andy has already mentioned and explained YouTube's copyright tool called "ContentID," more and more artists in West African countries where the YouTube partner program has launched are now relying on "ContentID" and uploading their entire works on YouTube. Therefore I believe that, generally speaking, internet companies and organizations such as Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and others should continue to help build tools that will fight this phenomenon. It will benefit internet users worldwide as well as their respective companies.
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:48, 25 February 2014 (EST)


I suggest everyone truly interested in a great summary of Intellectual Property Law get a copy of the textbook used in the Extension School's IP clas, Intellectual Property IN the New Technological Age. by Robert Meneges and others. It gives a great summary of all aspects of the subject including copyright, trademarks, patents, trade secrets etc.
----
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 09:00, 7 March 2013 (EST)


Copyright law and theory is as I stated above founded on the principal that one who creates something should be rewarded for his or her toils and this serves as a financial or other incentive for future contributions to society. But this runs contra to the idea of a free and open highway of information that can be passed on and improved up. Again, the Internet is an institution, if I can call it that in balance and compromise.  
I've been truly impressed by Lawrence Lessig's presentation and couldn't stop watching till the end. He rose some very important questions, in a very pertinent way, and it is by far the best presentation I've seen so far on why copyright has to be rethought from the ground up, but not abolished. I think the point that we can't kill the technology, only criminalize it, is especially important for everyone to finally realize. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 15:52, 25 February 2014 (EST)
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 14:40, 7 March 2013 (EST)


The law changes even faster than science, but only in small increments. Barely a moment, and certainly not an hour goes by when some legislative body or executive is not enacting a new law.  Yet major changes are slow in coming, and the law is usually show to adjust to advances in science. When the Internet and domain names first appeared every Peter and Paul registered a domain name of a popular company or product, such as Coclacola.com, because our intellectual property laws were far behind the Internet. The caught up, but not before thousands of creative individuals made a fortune by selling ones name back to them as domain names. 
----


Every major advance in communication has resulted in a major change in the law.
It is timely that this week’s class on copyright just so happens to coincide with the Harvard Library’s “Fair Use Week” celebration activities. As you will have noticed by this week’s reading, it is because of the Fair Use provisions and the First Sale Doctrine, that libraries have been permitted to serve their core mission in our society. And while recent court cases have come down favorably on the side libraries (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, HathiTrust vs. The Authors Guild and (to some extent) the Georgia State E-Reserves Copyright case), threats to these freedoms we enjoy in simply sharing information are not going away anytime soon. Licenses are become more complex in our agreements with electronic vendors, and what we “presume” may be covered by fair-use and the first-sale doctrine can be quickly wiped out by a license agreement with a content provider… Who, in many cases, possesses the sole exclusive access to the content we need to provide to our research community. How did the content provider gain sole access to all the research that was produced by authors?  Some of you may have noticed a little phrase in the section on “Who Can Claim Copyright”… it said “Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright”. Journal publishers frequently “corner” the author (my choice of words) into signing over “copyright-transfer-agreement”, which (frequently) transfers the full bundle of copyright that the author(s) obtained at the point of “fixed work”, and give the full bundle of copyright exclusively to the publisher.


The advent of movable type in 1436 caused a proliferation of books across Europe. It is estimated that before Gutenberg’s printing press the number of books in all of Europe numbered in the thousands, but that within 50 years, that number approached ten million.  Such explosive growth and its accompanying economic opportunities created an immediate need for protection of the rights of both author and publisher from the earliest of literary pirates.
Anyway – Celebrate Fair Use Week… more info here, with a familiar name on Friday’s panel.  http://library.harvard.edu/02242014-1000/its-fair-use-week
 
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 15:56, 25 February 2014 (EST)
 
----
 
Being a musician and songwriter myself - I was both, a little bummed out and a little enlightened at the same time, by the reality of what potentially could happen to anyone who puts anything online. Having posted music at different places online, then taking it off and changing it completely for my own reasons is obviously my choice, but to have this happen to someone with at least a somewhat semi-known artistic presence such as Erin McKeown, is a little disconcerting to say the least.
   
   
The world’s first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, was enacted in England in 1710. Exercising its power under the newly adopted Constitution to secure the rights of authors and inventors, Congress passed an act almost identical to the Statute of Anne as the first American copyright law in 1790.  
Several things come up when I read this – but I will limit it to one or two:
 
For instance, it seems like no one is taking SOPA seriously both domestically and internationally (well... maybe they are and maybe they aren't), as it has some big time major opponents in the U.S and abroad. For someone like Erin and all those who are not (like me), one’s only recourse is to hope that they (just call them for what they are, pirates) have some type of financial business ties to the U.S., so that some type of action can be taken legally. This is from our readings this week, “But these provisions are likely not the real force of the law, as fully overseas infringing sites (probably just insert countries here too) may try to ignore a U.S. court order. The law’s real force is focused domestically. Once a foreign infringing site has been made the subject of a court order, the Attorney General may apply the court order not only at the site but at American companies that occupy the space between the infringing site and an American end user’s browser- specifically, service providers, search engines, payment network providers, and advertising networks. Id. at § 102(c)(2)”1
After looking at my readings this week - what I get is that SOPA has very nice intentions, but is somewhat toothless while still maintaining a loud roar in the U.S. to frighten any one that might be listening. I know it’s a start, but it should have been a well-planned start, so that the lion can have some real teeth.
 
And as far as legal or any type of punitive action is concerned abroad, well… it seems like there really is none – believe it or not, I am liking iTunes more and more – The good thing about internet globalization, presently (vs. 2003-2008), is now, there is no place to hide because most of us are connected one way another – what will that mean in the years ahead, I am not sure, but it might not be a bad thing - for us home-brew amateurs.. :o)
1. Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert and Alicia Solow-Niederman: A close look at SOPA - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2011/12/02/reading-sopa/)


We should be guided by history’s lessons when considering taking a position and playing any part in copyright law on the Internet.
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 14:51, 4 March 2014 (EST)
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 11:47, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Latest revision as of 15:56, 4 March 2014

Syllabus


February 25

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.


Assignments

The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class today. Information on the assignment can be found here. Please note that we have updated the final project page's FAQ section based on some student questions that have come to us over the past week.

Readings/Watchings

The mechanics of copyright law
Digital applications and new challenges
Copyright solutions

Recommended Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Links

Ecclesiastical courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_court

Stationers Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers

1662 press act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

Statute of Anne: http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/statueofanne.pdf

Harvard on President Dunster: http://www.harvard.edu/history/presidents/dunster

Text of US Constitution: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf

Useful article doctrine: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html

LPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_record

Gramophone Records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_record

Lawsuits about sampling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling

Girl Talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)

eldred v ashcroft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

Joseph Story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story

Campbell v Acuff-Rose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

Legality of Dumb Starbucks: http://www.businessinsider.com/is-dumb-starbucks-legal-2014-2

UMG vs MP3.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com

Class Discussion

REMINDER
Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.


Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

--Melissaluke 16:05, 25 February 2014 (EST) This weeks readings reminded me of a very large error I made 15 years ago. Our firm wrote and published one of the first online instructional books covering how to buy and sell equities online. One of my clients asked if he could take a few of the publications back to China with him, to include video tapes of our partners buying and selling equities live on the internet.

All the material was converted into Mandarin within months. We lost everything and literally had no idea how to fix the problem.


This is related to an earlier class, but a great article on Wikipedia's bots has just been published on The Verge... This machine kills trolls: How Wikipedia’s robots and cyborgs snuff out vandalism --Seifip 17:53, 19 February 2014 (EST)

What an interesting article! It seems rather shocking to me that users would protest the implementation of bots to patrol vandalism on Wikipedia. One comment cited in the article is that "Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions". This seems like an argument made on principle rather than for practicality's sake. Surely we benefit from these anti-vandalism bots, as Wikipedia would be worthless if people were allowed to make whatever edits they pleased, due to the proliferation of internet trolls. Castille 16:01, 24 February 2014 (EST)



Regarding Copyright laws, it seems that there are many ambiguities and potential loopholes inherent in the system. How is it acceptable for musicians to freely perform "covers" of popular songs-- oftentimes to the extent that their entire act is merely covers, such as at weddings, corporate events, restaurants, etc.-- yet plays cannot be performed live without the consent of the author/copyright holder? It is not altogether uncommon in these situations for an artist to be paid to perform someone else's work, for the purpose of entertainment. What is the difference, then, between these situations? Based on Grimmelmann's article "Why Johnny can't stream", it appears that there are is an endless string of individuals and companies finding new ways to circumvent the laws, so that new laws must be implemented. Where does this stop? Is this due to rebellion against unfair copyright restrictions, companies merely trying to exploit artists and capitalize on their work, or individuals trying to be greedy or subversive?

By the way, has anyone heard about Aereo's progress, and/or where it currently stands in the legal system? I looked it up online and it seems to be taking on members who want to pre-register for the service, though the article was written in August of 2012, so you would think it would be out by now. Castille 13:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)

I was also curious about where the Aereo case(s) were currently... and happened upon this update published last week (also in arstechnica) "Aereo loses copyright fight, gets banned in 6 states" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/ and as Comcast/NBC "cuts a deal with Netflix"...as well as potentially merging with Time-Warner, just how "lovely" is that? http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/24/does-netflixcomcast-deal-remove-obstacle-to-twc-merger/ Psl 11:35, 24 February 2014 (EST)
Great comments! As to "covers" of popular songs, those are not usually free uses, but instead uses that are licensed in ways that most of us don't normally see. As to covers of live music, those are usually handled by blanket licenses from performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) through either the venue or the artist. For recorded covers, there is actually a statutory license in the law which allows the covering band to do this without permission, provided they pay a particular fee per copy sold. (These days most of that is administered through a corporation called the Harry Fox Agency.) And as for Aereo, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the Second Circuit's case (one of many, as Psl points out), which will in all likelihood set the standard for Aereo's legality nationwide. So we will see! Andy 16:48, 24 February 2014 (EST)
But certainly there are artists who are not paying royalties or any sort of licensing fee when they cover a song. Perhaps this is simply because there likely isn't anyone present who will verify that the artist has secured permission? For example, the copyright for "Happy Birthday to You" is owned by Warner/Chappell and therefore, a fee must be paid for any public performance of the song. Nevertheless, it is performed in public daily. How is that navigated by the law? Was Marilyn Monroe technically breaking the law when she sang it in public to JFK?Castille 23:05, 26 February 2014 (EST)


COPYRIGHT OF TEXTBOOKS

Based on the readings, how is it possible for new math textbooks for elementary and high school to claim copyrights when the content has not changed for decades? Perhaps examples and illustrations and format of presentation used across different textbooks may differ, but the content and concepts taught are essentially the same.

Ichua 18:19, 24 February 2014 (EST)

This question drives right to the heart of what is protected vs. unprotected under copyright. We're going to tackle that in some depth tonight. Andy 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

NPOV AND COPYRIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA

Because of NPOV, all content in Wikipedia need to be copied....and referenced. If one copies everything or extensively from a single source, would it still be legal? And if one copies from many sources, it is called a work of research? Ichua 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

Ichua 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

While the question of "is that research" is a complicated one, the particular copyright licenses offered over Wikipedia content are here. It's a bit complicated and depends on the particular media in question, but most adhere to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license for content, which allows use with attribution back to Wikipedia, provided what you use it for is also licensed under this same open term. We'll talk more about this tonight. Andy 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)
I almost forgot what i wanted to say about Creative Commons. As online content developer, sometimes we do indeed want certain content to be copied freely for marketing purposes or we felt it should be offered free to certain people, but people dare not distribute such content for us because of copyright infringement. Ichua 13:02, 25 February 2014 (EST)

The article, There is no Magic Bullet, was an interesting read. He talks about the idea of combatting piracy as often being boiled down to: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier" which is problematic. The availability of technology is making piracy a lot easier these days. While, legal options are usually a long and expensive option in most cases. This leaves us at a problem. The emergence of easy and paid websites, like amazon and netflix, worked as a legal alternative instead of piracy but it has not been successful in a world-wide scale so far. I think as long as there is a easy, free alternative, it will often be the first choice for most people, even it is illegal. It doesn't always have to be bad, especially as it relates to creative content like music. Free sharing is often a great opportunity for growth and marketing. I'm interested to see how copyright laws and creative content will develop with the advancement of the internet. I wonder if making piracy harder is a viable option at this point without infringing on personal content.

Lpereira 20:56, 24 February 2014 (EST)

It's a great question, and one that we're still trying to explore and understand. The anecdotal evidence we have suggests that countries that offer legal alternatives to piracy have experienced a drop in BitTorrent traffic since those have been made available, but it's near impossible to draw further conclusions off of that single point of data. Andy 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Reading the Grimmelmann "Why Johnny Can't Stream" article I'm reminded of how the music industry fought so hard against services like Napster, while simultaneously it was the emergence of technology like iTunes--and the consequent unbundling of music tracks from albums--that spelled the end of their industry as they knew it. Similarly, "broadcast" and the gatekeeper model of media distribution is at an end. While the broadcasters fight services like Aero, the whole idea of DVR (whether in your living room, or in the cloud) is not going to be relevnt in the future: services like Netflix's original content (e.g., House of Cards) and HBO Go, where content will be made available by the content owner itself, disintermediating the cable networks, will be the norm. In this environment, we won't need a DVR and cable companies won't be relevant. It seems to me that part of the strategy with services like Netflix original content or HBO Go is twofold: to eliminate their dependence on distribution networks, while also rendering DVRs (and their consequent copyright issues) obsolete. After all, I'd be buying my content by-the-drink from the creator rather than from a distribution network where I have a legitimate reason to copy it and watch at different types or with commercials removed.

Jradoff 20:58, 24 February 2014 (EST)

A separate question: why did the framers consider copyrights/patents important enough to mention in the Constitution? Why not just leave it to Congress to worry about as part of regulating interstate commerce? As Lessig noted in his video, intellectual property law was a very minor concern for anyone prior to the 20th century. The Internet Policy Task Force doc claims that "the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression” but that's stated as an assertion (quoting the Supreme Court) without any explanation. I'm interested in understanding the historical context and what the framers were concerned about. Thoughts?

Jradoff 21:00, 24 February 2014 (EST)

We'll be talking about that in class today, but the Lewis Hyde lecture in the recommended reading (and his book, Common As Air tackle that at considerable length). Andy 12:31, 25 February 2014 (EST)

WHY COPYRIGHT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ONLINE LEARNING:

Simply replicating textbooks into digital format for online accessibility is not good enough for online learning. Otherwise, all students should be getting A's for math and science just from reading textbooks. When my staff develops online resources for math, a lot of attention goes into how to engage the student online through interactivity, choreography, and animation. We also bear in mind how these resources might be used in the classroom. We incorporate multiple modalities of teaching, learning and self-assessments. And the skills required for creating an online learning resource are very different from just producing a textbook. We need the teacher or content expert to be able to think like a script-writer, a movie producer, a choreographer, a programmer and an animator, all rolled into one.

Ichua 02:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

PLAGIARISM AND ONLINE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT

It is very common to see several websites replicating the same information word-for-word. This makes internet searches very inefficient and frustrates internet users trying to do research on the web. Search robots should be used to warn website owners to remove such content.

Ichua 11:38, 25 February 2014 (EST)

HOW ONE COUNTRY CIRCUMVENTS THE COPYRIGHT PROBLEM IN DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE POOR

The copyright protects the earnings of the author and publisher and ensures that each copy of the book contributes a return to their investment. But the poor has no money. How can a country distribute knowledge to the poor? The Indian Ministry of Education seems to have authored their own content and made these academic content available online for free.

Ichua 11:57, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Smartphones have also helped citizens in being able to access the internet without a broadband home internet connection. Estimates claim that 56% of Americans now have smartphones and this has helped to significantly bridge the gap domestically.

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/26/for-some-without-home-broadband-smartphones-bridge-the-gap/

It appears that part of my last posting was cut off, but I am glad to see the Ichua brought up the issue of distribution of knowledge to the poor. It is honorable that the Indian Ministry of Education has taken steps to make this knowledge available online for free; yet, the impoverished may still be unable to access the internet in general. The "digital divide" has caused many third world nations without access to internet to fall further behind in global standing both academically and economically. Furthermore, within the United States, less fortunate communities with little access to internet are falling behind and some have argued this has contributed to educational dilemmas as resources on the internet are inaccessible to them as opposed to traditional textbook instruction. On the other hand, the internet has worked wonders in affording students like us to be enrolled in a course and dialogue with each other from across the nation (and world). Philanthropists, humanitarians, and good Samaritans alike have taken matters into their own hands to bridge the gap. The power of the internet has transformed social work as evidenced by the 2013 CNN Person of the Year, Estella Pyfrom, in her creation of a "Brilliant Bus" computer lab (on wheels) to tutor and service low-income communities:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/2013.heroes/estella.pyfrom.html

--AmyAnn0644 10:20, 26 February 2014 (EST)


--AmyAnn0644 13:25, 25 February 2014 (EST)

CUSTOMIZABLE ROYALTY FREE SOUNDRACKS

This is a cool software which I started to use a decade ago: http://www.smartsound.com You can specify the duration of the desired type of music and it will auto-generate the royalty-free soundtrack.

Ichua 12:22, 25 February 2014 (EST)

NEW SOFTWARE WHICH ENHANCES CREATIVITY AND REDUCES INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

New versions of software such as PhotoShop, Maya, and CrazyTalk, are now more powerful, user friendly and cost much less than a decade ago which enables the user to quickly create high quality original images, textures, scenes, and animations. This gives artists more incentives to exercise their own creativity and avoid copying from other sources.

Ichua 12:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Everyday millions of videos are uploaded to the servers of YouTube and responsible for assessing whether or not they are in accordance with the rules of copyright is the ContentID. The tool was created by Google to analyze the productions in search of pieces of audiovisual works protected by copyright. The record labels and movie studios send copies of their original works and the system compares numerous excerpts with what is being shared on the network to find illegal copies on site. When the system finds a similarity between the video posted by a user with videos available in a database registered in the ContentID , the rights holders are notified and must decide what will be done. Some options are: block the video, leave it mute or unavailable; monetize by displaying ads and inserting the video link to the original owner of the content , or even track it views with the statistics being computed only on who Analytics own the copyright on the work. http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_copyright gisellebatista
Great point, Giselle! We're going to talk about the "private ordering" around copyright (and the issues that come up there) with Adam Holland from Chilling Effects next week. Andy 14:53, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Outside of doubling down on the penalties for copyright infringement, we seem to gather very little cooperation for addressing the challenges of digital copyright. Any solution proposed with direct enforcement appears to cut corners with due process. Let's have the ISP's monitor and throttle back activity. However, ISPs lack the skill set and capability to interpret copyright law and adjudicate penalties. Increased inspection and examination of content brings about a level of surveillance that most users are uncomfortable with in their digital travels. VACYBER 13:12, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Some of these hard questions between enforcement and other values will be tackled next week when we discuss the DMCA, SOPA, Six Strikes, and some of the other enforcement ideas floated over the past decade or so. As I've said a few times in this class so far, there are no easy answers here, but I hope we can explore the values at stake. Andy 13:59, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Copyright infringement in many countries is still not resolved. As a result of infringement the music, films, videos, books and other information can be freely downloaded by users without the appropriate permission of copyright owners. A lot of people event don't know the difference between legal and illegal dissemination of information. This situation also impacts government (for example, tax issues) From my point of view, the reason is that the current legislation in many coutnrties is not enough for internet as it doesn't incorporate the characteristics of Internet. The new methods of protection of copyright should be established with close cooperation of internet providers (for example, blocking th user from access to certain website for several days in cases of infringement of copyrights or financial means as penalties). Aysel Ibayeva (Aysel 14:57, 25 February 2014 (EST))

It seems as though copyright as a whole is (and must) follow down the same path as online streaming did -- adapt or being adapted by the circumstances. Free online streaming is now legitimatized by the Crackles, etc. of the world. The industry adapted. Of course, that industry issue was based in copyright issues. But it now looks like other forms of copyright issues may have to follow down the same road. I'm thinking in particular of indie artist sampling and uploading material illegally (the control of this was main focus of my prospectus.) Twood 15:14, 25 February 2014 (EST)

First of all, I would say the article written by James Grimmelmann has opened my eyesight. Copyright is a really interesting topic that I would love to look into, especially the copyright on derivative work, in the other words, re-creation. In Hong Kong, the Government has been trying to ban derivative work by enacting a law to restrict people from re-creating. Jolietheone 15:18, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Copyright based laws seemed be to pretty much straight forward until the Internet came along. Actions of recording and copying in cases such as Sony’s debated whether it was legal to record with a VCR and view it later, a process known as "time-shifting". This was protected under a provision of 17 U.S. Code § 107 fair use. But a major problem came with Internet piracy, cited in Terry Harts article, There is No Magic Bullet. He has a simple solution: “make piracy harder, make legal options easier”, but it is not so easy to put into practice. It is an impossible task to scourer the billions upon billions of transactions happening online everyday. It seems that copyright laws have became bogged down by too many technical work-arounds that should be illegal but are technically not. These "protections" ultimately just make the law way more confusing. A large problem is because the laws are not national, Aereo is not legal in New Jersey, but what happens if someone hacks Aereos account from a remote site? Can Aereos still be sued for copyright violation? Emmanuelsurillo 15:21, 25 February 2014 (EST)

From a global perspective, I think that copyright infringement is a bigger problem in developing countries than here in the US. Take, for instance, a country such as Senegal where there are artists, authors, and content creators of kinds. The problem of copyright infringement had become such a serious issue for musicians that they are now turning to the internet (most specifically Google's YouTube) for help. What an irony, right?! The internet used to be and still is the place where a lot of copyright infringements happen due to its hard nature to regulate. However, in countries such as Senegal where musicians are finding it harder and harder to rightfully monetize their work, their "Ministry of Culture," whose head was also a musician, is now encouraging artist to partner with Google in order to distribute and monetize their entire albums on YouTube. As Andy has already mentioned and explained YouTube's copyright tool called "ContentID," more and more artists in West African countries where the YouTube partner program has launched are now relying on "ContentID" and uploading their entire works on YouTube. Therefore I believe that, generally speaking, internet companies and organizations such as Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and others should continue to help build tools that will fight this phenomenon. It will benefit internet users worldwide as well as their respective companies. cheikhmbacke 15:48, 25 February 2014 (EST)

I've been truly impressed by Lawrence Lessig's presentation and couldn't stop watching till the end. He rose some very important questions, in a very pertinent way, and it is by far the best presentation I've seen so far on why copyright has to be rethought from the ground up, but not abolished. I think the point that we can't kill the technology, only criminalize it, is especially important for everyone to finally realize. --Seifip 15:52, 25 February 2014 (EST)

It is timely that this week’s class on copyright just so happens to coincide with the Harvard Library’s “Fair Use Week” celebration activities. As you will have noticed by this week’s reading, it is because of the Fair Use provisions and the First Sale Doctrine, that libraries have been permitted to serve their core mission in our society. And while recent court cases have come down favorably on the side libraries (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, HathiTrust vs. The Authors Guild and (to some extent) the Georgia State E-Reserves Copyright case), threats to these freedoms we enjoy in simply sharing information are not going away anytime soon. Licenses are become more complex in our agreements with electronic vendors, and what we “presume” may be covered by fair-use and the first-sale doctrine can be quickly wiped out by a license agreement with a content provider… Who, in many cases, possesses the sole exclusive access to the content we need to provide to our research community. How did the content provider gain sole access to all the research that was produced by authors? Some of you may have noticed a little phrase in the section on “Who Can Claim Copyright”… it said “Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright”. Journal publishers frequently “corner” the author (my choice of words) into signing over “copyright-transfer-agreement”, which (frequently) transfers the full bundle of copyright that the author(s) obtained at the point of “fixed work”, and give the full bundle of copyright exclusively to the publisher.

Anyway – Celebrate Fair Use Week… more info here, with a familiar name on Friday’s panel. http://library.harvard.edu/02242014-1000/its-fair-use-week

Psl 15:56, 25 February 2014 (EST)

Being a musician and songwriter myself - I was both, a little bummed out and a little enlightened at the same time, by the reality of what potentially could happen to anyone who puts anything online. Having posted music at different places online, then taking it off and changing it completely for my own reasons is obviously my choice, but to have this happen to someone with at least a somewhat semi-known artistic presence such as Erin McKeown, is a little disconcerting to say the least.

Several things come up when I read this – but I will limit it to one or two:

For instance, it seems like no one is taking SOPA seriously both domestically and internationally (well... maybe they are and maybe they aren't), as it has some big time major opponents in the U.S and abroad. For someone like Erin and all those who are not (like me), one’s only recourse is to hope that they (just call them for what they are, pirates) have some type of financial business ties to the U.S., so that some type of action can be taken legally. This is from our readings this week, “But these provisions are likely not the real force of the law, as fully overseas infringing sites (probably just insert countries here too) may try to ignore a U.S. court order. The law’s real force is focused domestically. Once a foreign infringing site has been made the subject of a court order, the Attorney General may apply the court order not only at the site but at American companies that occupy the space between the infringing site and an American end user’s browser- specifically, service providers, search engines, payment network providers, and advertising networks. Id. at § 102(c)(2)”1 After looking at my readings this week - what I get is that SOPA has very nice intentions, but is somewhat toothless while still maintaining a loud roar in the U.S. to frighten any one that might be listening. I know it’s a start, but it should have been a well-planned start, so that the lion can have some real teeth.

And as far as legal or any type of punitive action is concerned abroad, well… it seems like there really is none – believe it or not, I am liking iTunes more and more – The good thing about internet globalization, presently (vs. 2003-2008), is now, there is no place to hide because most of us are connected one way another – what will that mean in the years ahead, I am not sure, but it might not be a bad thing - for us home-brew amateurs.. :o) 1. Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert and Alicia Solow-Niederman: A close look at SOPA - http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2011/12/02/reading-sopa/)

Dancoron 14:51, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2014/?title=Copyright_Part_1:_Guiding_Principles_and_Online_Application&oldid=1319"