Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2014-03-25T13:18:30Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2014-03-25T13:17:54Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

Peer Production: Development from the Edges and from the Crowd

2014-03-25T12:40:22Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

2014-03-12T10:49:04Z

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-25T17:44:36Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''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.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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 ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; 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://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.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.

== Recommended 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://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>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

{|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>

----

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)

: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)

----

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.
[[User:Castille|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/ [[User:Psl|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, [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)

----

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.

[[User:Ichua|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. [[User:Andy|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? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (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)

----
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)

: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)

-----
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.

[[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?

[[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)

----

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.

[[User:Ichua|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.

[[User:Ichua|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.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:57, 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.

[[User:Ichua|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.

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

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

2014-02-25T17:22:15Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''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.

<onlyinclude>

== Assignments ==

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 ==

; The mechanics of copyright law

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

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

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

; 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://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.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.

== Recommended 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://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>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

{|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>

----

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)

: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)

----

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.
[[User:Castille|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/ [[User:Psl|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, [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)

----

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.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 18:19, 24 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? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 February 2014 (EST)

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 19:51, 24 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.

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:56, 24 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.

[[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?

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 21:00, 24 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.

[[User:Ichua|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.

[[User:Ichua|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.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:57, 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.

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

----

Copyright Part 1: Guiding Principles and Online Application

Regulating Speech Online

2014-02-12T11:57:38Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-11T18:05:09Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 11'''

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Comparing and measuring connectivity

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzjUMdpmSw The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet?] (about 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity] (executive summary and introduction only)

; What is the role of government?

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Wikipedia, Net Neutrality]

* [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/01/net_neutrality_d_c_circuit_court_ruling_the_battle_s_been_lost_but_we_can.html Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War]

* [http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/ Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet]

* [http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/bright-ideas-nunziato-on-virtual-freedom-net-neutrality-and-free-speech-in-the-internet-age.html Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book ''Virtual Freedom'']

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8 Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform]

* [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://gizmodo.com/5912383/how-to-destroy-the-internet Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)]

* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353457 Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics] (pages 3-9)

* [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/taking-stevens-seriously/ Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously]

* [http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection]

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|Assignment 1]] is due ''before class'' today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==

{|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>

----

My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)

: I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia]. I was the original author of this article (I'm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarinth Tarinth] on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: [http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html "Marked for Deletion"]

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.).
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)

:As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia reliability of Wikipedia]. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) [[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

:The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)

: I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.)
--[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)

:Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access.
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)

: Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] and [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like [http://www.speedtest.net/ Speedtest] to check. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)
::: Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)

::Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network fiberoptic lines to every building] in Australia. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of
"referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.[[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----

In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)

:There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----
When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?).
[[User:Psl|Psl]] 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore:
https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)

A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

2014-02-11T17:50:33Z

Ichua: /* Class Discussion */