{{ClassCalendar}}

'''March 4'''

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

This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look to the now-famous fight concerning SOPA and PIPA, and other attempts to more strictly regulate against online piracy.

Joining us will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who works here at Berkman on the [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects] project.

== 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]].

<onlyinclude>
== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

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

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

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

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

; Case Study - SOPA/PIPA

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

; The big picture

* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]

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

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (''On The Media'')]

* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

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

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

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----
With some much copyrighted material out in cyberspace it is helpful to have provisions like the DMCA takedown and notice provisions to help combat copyright infringement. I think it is a reasonable approach to helping prevent abuses of copyright. On the other hand, instances like the Akon takedown do appear to fall into abuse of the DMCA. Nevertheless, I would argue that the DMCA actually worked in that instance because the material was taken down, but appealed and re-posted. However, if the political satirist in the Akon incident did not have legal counsel, the takedown probably would have remained. So there, I think is a flaw in the system, in that, companies with large pockets, and legal teams may be able to enforce their own form of censorship. With the proliferation of user generated content like blogs, with bloggers commentating and re-mixing copyrighted content, what constitutes infringement is more difficult to see. The good thing is that for the most part DMCA does not impose any prior restraint on expression. Posters are allowed to post without restraint, and for the most part they are not liable as long as the material in question is taken down quickly (as least I think that last part is true?).
The class readings about dig deeper into the problems that cease and desist letters, and DMCA takedowns have for expression on the Internet. The Chilling Effects website talks about the harm that these C&D letters can have on expression. Internet bloggers, satirists, and others may takedown their content on their own, causing a sort of self censorship for fear of prosecution from powerful adversaries.
SOPA, and PIPPA also would have caused a chilling effect, and probably out and out prior restraint on many users expression on the Internet. I think that a robust activist element from groups like the Berkman Center(shameless plug lol), the EFF, and Chilling Effects, help Internet users to know when new laws are being introduced to curb expression, and even help represent users who have had their material wrongfully censored or removed from the Internet. Yet, it concerns me a little bit that without such advocacy groups the little guys on the Internet would be at an even bigger disadvantage to the bigger fish on the internet.
One question I have was about the Bit torrent article, I didn't understand the importance of Bit torrents decline in use in the US. Was it that the decline might signify that users are avoiding bit torrent for some reason? Also, I saw that bit torrent and youtube, and netflix use disproportionate amounts of space on the system. Is this sustainable? Is it fair that a few applications and companies use up so much of the space? Does that cause harm, or take from other uses that the space could be used for? I'm not really sure how that "space" works. Is it unlimited?[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 08:13, 4 March 2014 (EST)

----

Yet again, related to an earlier class, but another interesting write-up was just published on The Verge: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked The Internet Is Fucked (but we can fix it)] --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 19:05, 26 February 2014 (EST)

----

Ditto, not related to Copyright, but the theme of the class in general, politics & control of the Internet. The Quebec government started [http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/26/quebecs_language_watchdog_targets_stores_use_of_english_on_facebook.html fining businesses] for not writing in French on their Facebook pages. I've never understood why Canada has such a stereotype of being 'nice'. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 23:37, 26 February 2014 (EST)

:Erin, thanks for sharing this. Seems like a really interesting example of the ways in which the Internet and digital technologies are a new place for old and ongoing debates to play out. With so much of our lives now taking place online, it makes sense that concerns about language, heritage, and culture have to be grappled with anew. I wonder if some of the push-back from business owners-- like the one in this article who says "Facebook has nothing to do with Quebec"-- stems from the idea that the Internet is a malleable and border-less place and confusion over what laws govern speech on a global forum run by a US-based company. And yes, I have heard some Quebecois friends get a little less than "nice" when it comes to discussing their francophone heritage... [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 15:16, 2 March 2014 (EST)
::Wow! That's crazy. Do you know what justification they have (or are using) to fine the businesses? Is it a case like the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against disabilities by such measures as requiring all public establishments to follow building codes to ensure disabled individuals are accommodated? By this I mean, is Quebec doing this so that French-speaking people are not excluded?[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:51, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

The highly controversial Section 512 of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512 provides a “safety zone”, where online service providers could operate shielded from liability charges on account of copyright infringement. Service providers function by allowing people to modify, post, and search content on their servers. By hosting foreign content that is not generated by the OSP or ISP, they were placing themselves into position of being held liable on infringement charges. This changed in 1998, because as long as roughly three essential steps were taken, an OSP could take advantage of the “safe-harbor” clause. One of those steps is the “expeditious” removal of infringing content. On the other side, the alleged offender can send a counter-notice disputing the copyright holders claim. This might seem in favor of the public domain with an anti-copyright agenda, but it does not diminish the copyright holders privileges in any way. This provision also allows the first step of prosecution in the form of takedown notices. While these measures are beneficial for the public good and provide a degree of protection, they seem utterly inefficient in situations like Erin McKeown experienced. In an attempt to control infringers and pirates, the ICE has engaged in domain seizures, which resulted in tens of thousands of innocent websites being shut down. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 22:26, 1 March 2014 (EST)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Takedown Hall of Shame has excellent examples of cease and desist letter offenders, even citing unusual claims such as one over the copyright privileges of a monkey’s photos! That is where major companies should take and follow Google’s example of standing up for users rights. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), MIT points out that to stop pirating has many dangerous side effects including but not limited to being unconstitutional in violating certain aspects of free speech. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 00:06, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

I was unable to find out anything about how many actions have been taken under the Copyright Alert System. Are there any known statistics on how many of these notices have been sent out or how many consumers have been affected? (whether centrally managed, or done by a third-party watchdog like EFF?)
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:48, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

I'm in a creative industry where intellectual property is important (software / online games). Yet I think that criminalization of intellectual property violations is ridiculous.

I called all my U.S. senators and representatives back when SOPA/PIPA was in the legislative process--I found it highly offensive. It seems absurd to me that someone would be placed in jail for copyright infringement, or that we are making agencies of the U.S. government an arm of private industry by using them to enforce this (not to mention giving government broad control over shutting down content that some moneyed interest finds objectionable).

The argument used by the industry is that copyright violation is equivalent to theft. I agree that many cases of copyvio are totally wrong, but I don't see why it can't be handled entirely through civil systems. The fact is that intellectual property violations *are* different from stealing a physical good, simply because in the former case we're dealing with a nonrival good (i.e., if you steal my car then I can't use it anymore; if you copy my software package, I've lost some potential revenue from you but you haven't deprived my ability to sell it to others). Furthermore, intellectual property violations are way more complex--these are cases that just aren't as clear-cut as showing that a theft actually occurred when you are caught with my stolen car.

I listened to the songs mentioned in the "Touch the Sun" / "Slung-lo" controversy referred to in the reading materials. I empathize with the creator of Slung-lo if they really feel their creation was improperly exploited, but I simply don't see the basis for their claim. But upon my listening I found both songs to be different, and the lyrics were (as far as I could tell) totally different. Billions of songs get made--lots will be similar. I shudder to think that a large and well-funded copyright holder could use claims like this to abuse others with the threat of criminal enforcement.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 13:58, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----

It seems that SOPA, PIPA, and the DCMA all seem to be working towards the same goal, that of eradicating copyright infringement/piracy. Why is the DCMA not sufficient? Internet piracy is a huge issue for the motion picture and music industries (and I'm sure for plenty of other industries) as it is stealing. I agree with Jradoff that it's not ''quite'' as bad as actual theft of property and therefore might not warrant a jail sentence, but it is essentially the same thing. What is the difference between going into a Best Buy and stealing a DVD or CD and stealing it from home? It seems the primary difference is simply the ease of convenience for the thief. I think we have only been desensitized to this kind of theft because it is so prevalent in society. Anyways, if we agree that internet piracy is "wrong", what can be done to curtail it further than the rules currently in place (i.e. the DCMA)? Have SOPA and/or PIPA been revised? In this article that I found on Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekbroes/2012/01/20/why-should-you-fear-sopa-and-pipa/], author Derek Broes claims to have testified before Congress to propose "many solutions, none of which violate our First Amendment Right to Free Speech", but he does not elaborate on any specific alternatives or amendments to SOPA/PIPA. What effective alternatives are there, which would go above and beyond what is already in place, but wouldn't be as "harmful" as SOPA/PIPA? Is there still talk of a new iteration of the legislature? I would imagine that with the onslaught of backlash from the initial bills, they would have to call them something different to mitigate any potential hate...[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:51, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
:The former government in Australia tried for many years to implement a voluntary scheme to crack down on piracy through a series of discussions with ISPs, instead of having the government legislating enforcement of copyright. The meetings stopped happening, as the representatives from iiNet (large Australian ISP), would often get up and walk out of the meetings.
:About 18 months ago, Australian Attorney-General George Brandis made a case against iiNet which attempted to hold them liable for their users on BitTorrent for piracy purposes, which was taken to the High Court. The entertainment industry was attempting to hold the ISP's liable because it is obviously not economically viable, (even if it is in fact possible) to prosecute each piracy user individually. iiNet was successful in their defense to which the High Court unanimously ruled the ISP is not liable for the acts of their users.
:iiNet’s routine business of providing access to the internet will not, by itself, mean that they authorise their customers' acts of copyright infringement. At the same time, iiNet is not obliged to contact customers or terminate their accounts in response to notices from copyright owners. Although users are liable for copyright infringement, it is hardly enforced at all in Australia. Australia is needing legislative reform in regard to copyright laws, as their attempts to enforce it have been futile. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 20:41, 3 March 2014 (EST)

::: I should also note that this is very low on the government's agenda. Most of the pirated entertainment comes from the USA. There’s no motive or benefit for the Australian Government to fight against illegal downloading on behalf of the American entertainment industry. In addition, most websites used by Australians to pirate, like BitTorrent and Pirates Bay, are American-based websites, which adds another disincentive for them. Unfortunately, a lot of piracy goes on here all too easily without intervention or blocking; almost makes me wonder if (per capita), more piracy happens here. Unless it becomes a political issue or the Australian government loses money over it, they’ll remain reluctant to spend the time or energy to fix it. [[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 00:03, 4 March 2014 (EST)

:Exciting-- I was just searching Google for an episode of Girls that I accidentally deleted from my DVR and found the following notification at the bottom of the search page:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org. [[User:Castille|Castille]] 00:22, 4 March 2014 (EST)

-----

It was interesting to read more on DMCA. I've never been too familiar with the specifics of the law but have faced it's effects constantly on YouTube as so many videos are removed over copyright claims. Reading more on it, I found this article very interesting: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/ten-years-later/ It portrays DMCA in a positive light, going as far as saying it "saved the web." I don't completely agree with the article, but I do think that content creators should have some safety net to ensure that their content cannot be used without proper credit or consent. And so, some safety net needs to be present but a filter that is too large is very concerning. The list of Takedown Hall of Shame is an alerting example of filtering gone wrong for the wrong reasons. It would interesting to see the solutions we come up with in the future. Will greater efforts of copyright regulation always be followed by an internet protest as large as the SOPA/PIPA one?

[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 20:45, 3 March 2014 (EST)

----
:Piracy is a major issue in Australia. The copyright laws are more loose than compared with other countries such as the US and it is relatively easy to download content illegally. Before watching a movie, an advertisement airs with the line “You wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal a handbag, you wouldn’t steal a movie. Downloading pirated films is stealing. Piracy - it’s a crime!”. I understand this commercial has a moral angle in hopes to minimise illegal downloading. However, If someone steals a car, handbag or wallet, a physical object that belongs to someone else has been removed without permission or payment. That would be theft. In one sense, if you download something illegally, it is a digital copy that changes hands. (‘Copy’ being the operative word). With piracy, nobody is physically deprived of anything, which is why I think most Australians don’t have a moral conflict when downloading illegally, which makes the advertisement’s suggestion that you are ‘stealing’ seem ludicrous.
:Of course, this pirate ‘thief’ can make the work available to anyone for profit. However, not all online piracy is done for profit. Those profiting from piracy are the people selling copied films and CDs out of the back of their car, and people selling software ‘compilation’ disks.
:Which brings me to the point, while the original creator might not be deprived of something, they ARE missing potential earnings. This is the difficult problem to solve. The past 10-odd years, we have seen a large value transfer from studios and publishers to those who will illegally download. However, I question whether or not the aspect of lost income from the entertainment industry is accurate. How is this measured? Are these estimated numbers exaggerated, or is this an honest reflection of loss for the entertainment industry?
:One of the main objectives of the Copyright Alert System is to return the earnings to the entertainment industry and original owners of content. But in the end, will this system end up throttling the internet and the principles associated, i.e. free speech, that we believe the internet should stand for?
[[User:Marissa1989|Marissa1989]] 00:24, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-25T19:04:08Z

Mikewitwicki: /* Comments */

Assignment 2 Submissions

2014-02-25T19:03:21Z

Mikewitwicki: /* Comments */

Assignment 1 Submissions

2014-02-11T19:29:21Z

Mikewitwicki: /* Submissions */

{{AssignmentCal}}

===Submission Instructions===

'''This section of the website is crawled by search engines. If you do not want your name to appear in a search connected with your writing, use your class wiki username.'''

''Please make sure the name of your file includes your name or pseudonym (example: Name_Assignment1.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment.''

Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (final deadline: Tuesday, February 12, 5:30pm ET).

Upload your file here: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/Special:Upload Upload file]. After you upload your file, please post a link to it in the "Submissions" section below in the following format:

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym:
* Link to rule: (URL of the Wikipedia editing policy you chose)
* Link to article: (URL of the Wikipedia article you edited)
* Link to report: (URL of the file you uploaded)

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

Need help editing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Check out this guide]

===Submissions===
Please post your link to your report below, in the following format:
*Mikewitwicki

*Rule: NPOV; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate

*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Michael_Thomas_assignment1.docx

[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 14:29, 11 February 2014 (EST)

* AmyAnn0644

* Rule Chosen: Verifiability -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

* Wiki Edited: Marwari Yuva Manch -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwari_Yuva_Manch

* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:AmyAnn0644_Assignment1.docx
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 16:39, 10 February 2014 (EST)

[[User:Andy|Andy]] 19:58, 14 November 2013 (EST)
----

* MikeJohnson (course Wiki), MDJAnalyst (on Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability]
* [ARTICLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2014J]
* [REPORT: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/MikeJohnson-Verifiability.pdf]

[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 12:22, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

* margorm (class wiki), marengo5 (Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VERIFY]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosensor - Revamped the section on Interferometric Reflectance Imaging Sensor]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment1_Monroe.rtf Verifibility Report by Margo Monroe]

([[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 19:19, 10 February 2014 (EST))
----

*AKK22 (on this wiki, and Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprout_(TV_network) Sprout]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Kauth_Assignment1.pdf Report PDF]

----

* Jradoff (on this wiki), Tarinth (on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:V]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_systems Generative systems]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment1Radoff.txt Report Text]

[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 12:21, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Dancoron (in the class wiki), DCorona501st (is my name on Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VERIFY]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Corp - My addition Roland JV-80 Synthesizer & ROland SR-JV80 Expansion boards]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Dancoron_assignment1.doc My report of Verifiability]
[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 15:33, 8 February 2014 (EST)

----
* Castille (on class Wiki), Stille1002 (on Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_compensation]
* [REPORT: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:CastilleRath_ASSIGNMENT_ONE.doc]
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

* jkelly (class wiki). jkelly88 (Wikipedia)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunset_Tree The Sunset Tree]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Jkelly_Assignment1.doc Assignment 1]
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 21:36, 9 February 2014 (EST)

----

* ichua (class wiki); iyhchua (Wikipedia)
* [RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_compartment_of_leg]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:LSTU-E120_Assignment1_IanChua.pdf Assignment 1]
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:11, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Watson
* Rule chosen: NPOV -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* Wiki Edited: Silk Road(marketplace) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)
* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Watson_Assignment1.docx
--[[User:Watson|Watson]] 23:22, 10 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Drogowski (on this Wiki) drogowski (on Wikipedia)

* Rule Chosen: Verifiability -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

* Wiki Edited: Uniform Investment Adviser Law Exam -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Investment_Adviser_Law_Exam

* Posted Link to Assignment Submission: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Daniel_Rogowski_LSTU_Project_1.docx

----

* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Philip Seyfi ([[User:Seifip|Seifip]])
* Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
* Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford
* Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Seyfi%2C_Philip_-_Assignment_1.pdf
----
* Your Name or Chosen Pseudonym: Aysel Ibayeva
* Link to rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
* Link to article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
* Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Verifiability.docx. [[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 11:27, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva

----
* Pseudonym: Twood
* Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_journalism
* Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_one_twood.rtf [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:29, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

* Pseudonym: Deluxegourmet / Erin Saucke-Lacelle
* Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
* Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety
* Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:ErinSaucke-LacelleAssignment1.rtf
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 12:56, 11 February 2014 (EST)

----

Lucia Gamboa
* [RULE: Verifiability -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability]
* [ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plans_from_around_the_world#Mexico]
* [REPORT: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Assignment_1_LGS.docx]

----

*Lpereira
*[Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability]
*[Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_market]
*[Report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/File:Lpereira_assingment_1.docx]

----

*PSL (Class wiki), Kleinzach2001(on Wikipedia)
*[Link to rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]
*[Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central]
*[Link to report: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/PSL_Assignment1.rtf]

----

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2014-02-04T17:58:27Z

Mikewitwicki: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''February 4'''

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

This class will explore different frameworks for studying the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments. The second hour of the class will focus on applying these concepts to Wikipedia, and teeing up the [[Final Project|final project]] for the class, where we will discuss the research prompt, talk about some successful projects from prior years, and plot out the deadlines for the rest of the semester.

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

; Mechanisms of control

* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/what_things_regulate Lawrence Lessig, ''Code 2.0,'' Chapter 7] (read intro, "A Dot's Life," and "On Governments and Ways to Regulate")

* [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] (read 1-3 and 9-22)

* [http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/WhiteFlight.pdf danah boyd, White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook] (read 1-11, skim 12-18, read 19-end)

; The effects of control

* [http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/book-review-2008-06-2-admin/ Nate Anderson, Book Review: Jonathan Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It" (from ''Ars Technica'')]

* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It] (Chapter 1, "The Battle of the Boxes," and Chapter 4, "The Generative Pattern," only)

* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (pp. 379-396 only; stop at "The Physical Layer")

== Optional Readings ==

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbYQ0AVVBGU Jeffrey Lin, Play Nice: the Science and Behavior of Online Games] (Focus on 0:00-27:17. It's a long video, but an interesting exploration of how one company uses game design to regulate griefing and other online bad behavior. Some of the discussed language is NSFW.)

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/ Megan Garber, The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?, Nieman Journalism Lab]

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020 Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (Focus on sections I and II)

</onlyinclude>

== Assignment 1 ==

Assignment 1 is due before next week's class (February 11th). Details of the assignment will be discussed in today's class; see [[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting|this page]] for further information. You can submit the assignment [[Assignment 1 Submissions|here]].

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:49, 8 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

Therefore, to maintain order, ensure efficient government, and improve social justice, kings, presidents, and prime ministers must be the chief architect of their country's internet code. They must be multi-skilled or have the support of a talented and scholarly team.

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 13:39, 31 January 2014 (EST)

----

It seems lots more fun to watch than just read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7UlYTFKFqY

[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 03:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)

:Zittrain's talks are always a lot of fun! But we chose the two chapters in order to focus on a few of the specific things we'd like to dive into for this class. His book talk is much more general. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 08:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)

----

The Zittrain chapters give a good overview of how the Internet had been developed up to circa 2008, but there have been some significant changes--and possible reversals of the "generative" model since that time. The increasing role of SaaS platforms, centralized APIs, and operating platforms with a much more pervasive level of control relative to older operating systems (e.g., IOS, Android, and social networking platforms like the Facebook developer platform) have reintroduced an aspect of large, single-point-of-failure, commercially controlled systems. Whereas Cluetrain envisioned a future of "small pieces loosely joined," the Internet of today might be better described as "lots of small pieces largely dependent on a few large, commercially-controlled pieces." These few large pieces raise concerns in terms of limiting the potential for innovation, negotiation with gatekeepers (which, as rightly discussed in the Zittrain chapters, was one of the things that killed innovation on earlier mobile platforms) and the shifting of business opportunities across the market from creators to platform owners. Will there be another wave of generative platforms that will wear down the the current trend to centralization, and if not, how can we best ensure continuous innovation on the Internet?
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 20:27, 3 February 2014 (EST)

:At an [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/02/defending_an_unowned_internet event last night] Prof. Zittrain mentioned another possible enclosure movement for generativity I hadn't thought of before: many web services are finding themselves at the receiving end of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS#Distributed_attack DDoS Attacks] for one reason or another. As a result, services are moving from their own servers capable of withstanding such attacks - primarily [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services Amazon Web Services], but there are a few others as well. If all of the Internet moves to just one of three or four web servers, that gives those servers tremendous power to cut off something they may not like. That's a form of "contingent generativity" that could cut off a lot of the social good that both Zittrain and Benkler flag in their articles. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:28, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

Coming off of last week's reading (specifically John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of Independence of the Internet"), I found danah boyd's essay "White Flight in Networked Publics?" particularly interesting. Even before reading boyd's piece, Barlow's "Declaration" seems hilariously naive in 2014, though I can certainly appreciate the utopian vision it's based on. The idea that the world that we exist in (the physical reality described by Orin Kerr) won't intrude on the virtual world of the Internet seems impossible. (Did they really not believe that the best AND worst parts of us would be present?) The role of the Internet in our everyday social lives has, of course, increased exponentially since 1996, so it only makes sense that who we are and how we behave in the physical world will translate to equivalent behavior on the Internet. The ways in which behavior on the Internet effects people in the physical reality of their lives (particularly when it comes to harassment, threatening behavior, etc.) lends a great sense of urgency to figuring out how we should think about the Internet and the law.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:18, 3 February 2014 (EST)

:Both boyd and Hargittai use a lot of pre-Internet scholarship in their writings for this course - a nice reminder that new technology does not necessarily mean new approaches to scholarship. But as Benkler notes, it is not that we are simply repeating the 20th century with shinier objects. There is something different about the way that information travels today that changes the ecology of information and cultural production. We can either adopt that change or legislate/architect it away. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 10:36, 4 February 2014 (EST)

----

I agree with Ichu's remarks about the need to somehow maintain order and to do so utilizing a talented and scholarly task force. My question would then be how this team would be selected/elected? Another potential issue would be how to ensure justice in a system where internet code is controlled by one's government or sole government official/king/president? In our reading by Orin Kerr, he highlights how these conflicting external and internal perspectives on the internet add fuel to the problem of internet law. The internet has two personalities in its vast internal cyberspace and also in acting as a physical network; striking a balance between the two and incorporating both identities into a legal system continues to evade and frustrate authorities.

In response to Megan Garber's reading on Wikipedia, I find that Wikipedia often does not get the credit or praise it deserves. Admittedly, no online community-built encyclopedia can be fool-proof, but the reason why Wikipedia has prevailed is its relative reliability. I have used the site extensively and it has provided me with a quick summary of events on a particular debate or issue. Garber's reasons for Wikipedia's success are logical in that familiarity is the cornerstone for many website's success rates. The ease of navigating the site and the non-committal method of editing or adding to the work encourages more users to contribute. I would also argue that, beyond the cultural/socio-economic/racial influences that cause users to migrate from site to site (such as from myspace to facebook), the constantly changing platform of facebook has led many to stray from the site. This is difficult to prove, of course, but when I had a Facebook account I recall many complaints from my peers about all of the changes that kept happening occurring on the site. It seemed that every week we had to ajust to a new feature or re-learn how to navigate. Accordingly with Garber's theory, the "familiarity" factor was diminishing for users and people tend to resist change especially on a site that they have grown accustomed to.

--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 04:08, 4 February 2014 (EST)

I was also interested in Megan Garber's point that the authorless structure of Wikipedia lowers the pressure of contributing. It certainly makes sense to me (and, I'm sure, to anyone who has read the comment section of any news article or blog post ever written...) that anonymity can encourage participation. When there's lower pressure to perform and you aren't faced with high stakes when you get involved, it's easier to bring yourself to contribute. This seems to tie in to Zittrain's point about the success of Wikipedia: it developed somewhat un-self-consciously and organically, rather than as a top-down "knowledge project" initiated by large universities. Oversight of the development of new technologies would presumably put a damper on this type of growth at any and all levels. I think this is nicely addressed by Zittrain's point that we're not looking at choosing between technology and non-technology, but a hierarchy and polyarchy.

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:48, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Lawrence Lessig’s article focuses on liberty in Cyberspace and how various modes of regulation effect that liberty. He focuses on four different ways that the web can be regulated,1)the Law, 2)social norms, 3) the market, and 4)architecture. Lessing tries to get us to think differently, more critically, about different mechanisms that can lead to restriction of freedom on the Web.

For instance, with the architecture of the Web, Lessing asserts that the written code of programs inherently can either provide more freedom, or restrict freedom, and access.
And when it comes to the law, Lessing points out that “The efficient answer may well be unjust.” He gives an example of the law requiring life sentences for stealing car radios.

We all would probably agree that that is overboard and excessive. And, with that absurdity planted in our minds, Lessing then shows how a coder could easily put a restriction in the radios code that would make stealing the radio less desirable for thieves. Which would in turn make it unnecessary for such a draconian law of life sentences for car radio thieves.
This example makes me think about Aaron Swartz, a friend of Lessigs, whom took his own life in 2013. Aaron was prodigy kid who helped create RSS feed, and Reddit at a young age. He later became what you might call an internet activist, and made enemies in the federal government for some hacking activities. He was eventually charged with multiple felonies by the Federal government for hacking MIT’s JSTOR server.
Lessing talks about how law and code can either liberate or restrict the Internet.
I believe Swartz’s case shows how the MIT/JSTOR rules of access, restricted information on the Web, and how federal laws were excessive and restricted innovation and liberty for Web users. And lastly, Swartz’s case shows how one coder tried to use hacktivism, to liberate information on the web.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 12:58, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2014-01-28T18:04:33Z

Mikewitwicki: /* Class Discussion */

{{ClassCalendar}}
'''January 28'''

The Internet at its core is simply an expression of a technological protocol that allows for a particular way of sharing information. But its role has never been this understated. The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. So is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about access to solipsistic blogging, pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music, and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

'''There is a small assignment to do before class. See [[#Preparation (Assignment "Zero")|Assignment Zero]] below.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

* Reflect on what you believe are the most significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies. In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the [[#Class Discussion|Class Discussion]] section below and be prepared to discuss them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

'''What is the Internet?'''

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc Ethan Zuckerman, History of the Internet] (approx. 7 mins., watch all)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmMNRHktX8 Jonathan Zittrain, How the Internet Works] (approx. 4 mins., watch all)

'''How does the Internet change governance?'''

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

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

* [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/03/the_third_wave.htm Eric Goldman, The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism]

* [http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html Rebecca MacKinnon, Let’s Take Back the Internet! (TED.com)] (approx. 15 mins., watch all)

'''Who governs the Internet?'''

* [http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-13jan14-en.png ICANN, Who Runs the Internet?] (infographic)

* [http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071915 Alex Simonelis, A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies] (skim, but focus on ICANN, IETF, IANA, and W3C)

'''Who is the Internet? Who is it not? What can we do about it?'''

* [http://www.webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-DigitalDivideWhatToDo2007.pdf Eszter Hargittai, The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (New Economy Handbook)] (focus on Sections I-III)

:* Hargittai’s data is from 2003. For more recent data, see [http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Offline%20adults_092513_PDF.pdf Pew Internet & American Life Project, Who's Not Online and Why] (read the summary, skim the sections).

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHkG7w2IA8 Ethan Zuckerman, Why Our Webs Are Rarely Worldwide, And What We Can Do About It] (approx. 14 mins., watch all)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/04/video-who-controls-the-internet/ Ellery Biddle, Who Controls the Internet? (''Global Voices'')] (video in Spanish with English subtitles, 10 mins., watch all)

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

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752415 Tim Wu, Is Internet Exceptionalism Dead?]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Welcome to Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control! This is the section of the page where you should add your comments to complete "assignment zero." Once you have registered an account, just click the "[edit]" button at the upper right hand corner of this section to add text! '''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>

Access and participation afforded by the spread of digital technologies have had a significant impact socially, culturally, politically, and economically. Socially, access to networking platforms, social media, internet calling services and instant messaging have changed the quantity of individual connections- and quality of relationships- regardless of location throughout the world. Culturally, stratification of identity or orientation has shifted significantly; the emphasis on national, religious, ethnic, and other cultural differences has been diluted by the rise of interconnectivity, access to information and the ability to participate across cultures. Politically and economically, the impact is largely similar- access to non-traditional and real-time news sources fostered by the spread of digital technology empowers the consumer as well as the constituent. The ability to inform oneself and advocate for individual and collective interests has changed the landscape of economic and political participation; unfortunately this has been coupled with increased concerns about rights to information disseminated on the internet and the protection of privacy at the individual and organizational level. [[User:Akk22|Akk22]] 11:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)

The explosion of digital technology has dramatically impacted society in all facets of life. It has evolved us as a species and will continue to change the way in which we interact with each other, the way we think, and eventually the human body itself will gradually transform. In terms of inventions, the birth of the internet has far surpassed any other invention known to mankind with respect to the magnitude of change occurring within the relatively short lifespan of its existence. As a child, I recall when robots were once considered something so distant in the future, but now we have a form of a robot with the internet. It contains more "knowledge" and holds more information than any human being.

Digital technology has altered society in several ways that I have observed and experienced:

Socially & Culturally - Digital technology has changed the way humans make plans and interact with one another. It appears that encounters and relationships have somehow become more casual and less personal via the advancement and widespread use of social media. Formalities and formal interactions are becoming less common. A simple text message now is the norm for setting up a date with a potential mate rather than a phone call or knocking on the lady's door to ask her parents' permission for a proper date.

Along these lines, for better or worse, it appears that even the cultural style of dress for those in the younger generations has evolved into a more casual trend. People are generally more accepting with an "anything goes" type of attitude. The iconic CEO Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerburg, is often seen wearing his T-Shirt even when meeting with other high profile CEOs and officials.

The so-called "dot-com" generation has also been known to feel the need for "instant gratification" and appear to have less patience than the elder members of society. This makes sense given digital technology's ease of immediate information sharing and overall access to information at the click of a button. Only a few years ago it seemed normal if someone did not respond within a day or two. Now if someone does not answer after one or two days, 911 is serious consideration.

General reliability between friends is also another changing element of human interaction because with the click of a button someone can cancel plans or easily evade previously planned obligations. A few decades ago, if I told someone we were to meet at the train station, I had better show up because I had no way of letting my comrade know I could not make it. It used to be considered nearly impossible to ask someone to "hang out" on the same day because planning with such short notice was simply not possible. With cell phones and text messaging, "meeting up" is now the norm and planning events out is becoming less common (or so has been true in my experience).

Governance & Governing: As Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu illustrate in their example about Yahoo in "Digital Borders", the internet has and I believe will continue to erode the general power of government. The internet has no borders and trying to determine the convoluted doctrine of privacy is a grapple for any expert to endure. The internet also enhances the power of the individual (for better or worse) as it affords all members of the world with a platform for anyone to view. With an unlimited audience propaganda becomes all the more powerful and any thought can be expressed and followed by the masses. Culturally, this can also enhance narcissism to the extent that one's own thoughts, photos, and individual power/image can be continually broadcasted for the world to see.

The internet has obviously changed the way laws are enforced and the modus operandi in which criminals operate. While the internet has arguably made it easier for law enforcement to catch certain types of criminals, other types of threats (namely, cyber crime) are more difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to detect.

Economy: While the internet has worked wonders for many economic gains such as providing general efficiency; the downside is the threat that if the internet crashes or otherwise becomes inoperable, business suddenly takes a back seat and can become totally paralyzed acting as a prime target for adversaries (as the recent Target credit card hacking events have shown). In other words, the benefits of efficiency are only truly beneficial to the extent that internet platforms are operating smoothly. The overdependence on the internet is perhaps the most frightening thing our society faces. I will never forget the first time I was at a store and the "servers" were down at the checkout counter. After two hours of shopping and loads of groceries, I was turned away even after offering cash! The computer system required all transactions to be logged. The damage to the economy if this were to happen on a grand scale would be damming.

The internet has actually changed the very definition of success and perception of success in my opinion. In one minute, you can become rich off the internet. One youtube video posted can start Justin Bieber's Hollywood career; the advent of a social media website can make someone one of the richest in the world. Striking it rich has become much easier for some who thrive off the popularity contest the internet provides. How this has impacted the traditional view of the American dream remains to be seen.

[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

The spread of digital technologies has sparked an ubiquitous world. Communication is instantaneous, global, and self-published. As a result, the public has chosen which social and political interactions to reject and trust, causing a potentially biased perception of their contemporary world. The irony of this bias is that the ability to access information from a variety of sources is unprecedented; sorting through the inundation of un- and published materials - fact or opinion - becomes a challenge for even the most educated. For the youth, privacy becomes re-defined as being alone physically, yet open to sharing the most insignificant or significant details of their lives digitally (how will these tendencies shape the future?). The combinational effects of these changes establish a gateway for future technologies to be adapted (or rejected) by the public; however, improving awareness and education of the general public is of utmost importance in order for society to fully embrace the power and impact of these future tools.

[[User:Margorm|Margorm]] 20:48, 27 January 2014 (EST)

“Change” holds neither a positive, nor negative connotation, so I will provide an example of each:

The negative: The ubiquity of camera-equipped, internet-connected smartphones allows millions of Americans to digitally upload and share photographs with ease. Sometimes, though, these photos are compromising and end up in the hands of nefarious purveyors of “revenge porn.” The proliferation of revenge porn can and does compromise the privacy (and oftentimes safety) of private citizens who become unwitting victims of sexual harassment. And in most cases, law enforcement is unable to prosecute offenders. Many U.S. states punish “cyberstalking,” but only as a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement cannot obtain warrants that are necessary to collect evidence needed to prosecute. Recourse in civil court proves equally futile due in large part to antiquated copyright law. I believe that revenge porn serves as an example of the social and political problems that can arise when technology moves faster than the law.

The positive: Digital technology continues to reinvent the culture of higher learning. For instance, I am currently participating in this discussion, and will attend this Cambridge-based class remotely, from my home in Manhattan, NYC. Moreover, MOOCs offered by EdX and similar providers allow interested parties to engage in courses out of genuine interest.

[[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 00:33, 27 January 2014 (EST)

significant social, cultural, political or economic changes associated with the spread of digital technologies:

1) culturally and politically, spin control held by governments and regional authorities ( religious, corporate, ethnic ) loses traction in the minds of individual internet users; digital tech results in a macro shift of the rhetoric of belief from formerly established originators of spin to the web itself as provider of deconstructed information that individuals more typically use to form their own beliefs and to question the validity of formerly established paradigms.

2)economically, web commerce fast outdates the economics of traditional physically-based logistics. Serious privacy issues among users of new technologies stand as barriers to user confidence, even as new tech info systems tend to present prospective users with no viable lesser-cost alternatives.

[[User:Mbouscaren|Mbouscaren]] 14:55, 25 January 2014 (EST)

1. The ability to communicate instantly has changed social interactions and relationships on a personal level (i.e. the instant feedback available on social media and communication via email, text, etc.) and in wider communities (i.e. forums, comments on news articles and blogs, etc.). The access to and engagement with new communication technologies can be empowering for those who may have otherwise felt voiceless, while a sense of anonymity can lead to harassment with minimal consequences.

2. Fast and easy access to information that allows individuals to educate themselves (though that has to be balanced against the challenges of finding reliable sources) and have more control as consumers (compare products, read reviews, etc.).

[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:25, 26 January 2014 (EST)

*'''Significant social change -''' People with traits of autism, Asperger's, ADD, dyslexia, social anxiety are becoming over-represented among successful CEOs and entrepreneurs, relative to the population at large. The current economy has been rewarding companies run by people who have mental characteristics adapted to software programming, engineering, and creativity (for example) much more than in the past.

*'''Economic change -''' ''(To be honest, both of my answers could fit into social, political and economic...)'' Markets are shifting from broadcast, one-size fits all models of communication towards narrowcast, peer-to-peer conversations. On the Internet, consumer-driven input, quality products/content and sometimes even user-generated content are valued more highly than tightly-controlled corporate 'spin'. Of course this may change substantially with the fall of net neutrality.

[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 20:15, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Significant social change: The way in which news spreads has changed drastically with the advent of the internet. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and particularly Twitter, have become news outlets that have, in some cases, proved to be quicker at providing up-to-the-minute current event info than traditional news providers.

Cultural/legal change: The spread of digital technologies has impacted the music industry and amateur artists in a profound way. A great example is the issue of mash-ups, the cutting and pasting of previously-recorded songs to make a brand new tune. Mash-ups have proven to be an outlet for amateur creativity, as the average person can take different songs (often times of different genres and beats) off the internet and make something entirely new. That amateur can then share her music with others. The music industry is not a fan of mash-ups, claiming that the infringe upon copy-right law. Current copy-right laws in the US are far behind the internet and do not provide guidelines on how to maintain a balance between what mash-up artists consider their 1st Amendment rights and what the music industry consider copy-right infringement.( There's a lot more I could say about this, as I wrote a paper on it, but in the interest of keeping it short, I'll end here.)

[[User:Lrsanchez|Lrsanchez]] 10:25, 27 January 2014 (EST)

Technology and the internet have changed the face of communication in all of its various subjects-- political, social, cultural, etc.-- which is to say that it has mostly replaced actual faces and voices with a computer screen. This is not to say that there aren't benefits, as there certainly are a plethora of benefits, ranging from the accessibility of information and quick dissemination of news. With a mere device, one is capable of staying connected to their family, friends, and the community at large no matter where they travel. Like never before, people are being brought together from drastically different backgrounds and geographical locations. We are being exposed to stories about the cultural traditions of the smallest microcosms and have access to nearly every facet of companies, governments, et cetera. While there is certainly power in this digital age of communication, as demonstrated clearly in the political realm with the recent revolution in Egypt, the internet and technology have paradoxically separated us from one another. There is less and less human-to-human contact, with people preferring to sit at home behind their computer or telephone screens instead of discussing events in person. Individuals may now be able to see everything with Google Maps, for instance, but is this a satisfactory substitute for actually experiencing these places and incidents with every sense? And aside from sensory deprivation, we are creating an emotional barrier which spans the gamut from creating social awkwardness in person to allowing thoughtless online bullying to run rampant. However, even with plenty of negatives, can we condemn the very same internet and technologies which have advanced medicine and businesses the world over? The world economy has benefitted greatly, with global commerce being as easy as clicking a button or filling out a billing form. Individuals anywhere can start a business with minimal effort and are able to participate in global trade. As with most good things, there are certainly positives and negatives that go along with the internet and technological advances.
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:46, 27 January 2014 (EST)

Digital technology helps us to automate repetitive, time-consuming, and error-prone tasks, enabling humans to spend more time doing what only humans can do: generate ideas. To use a timely example, TurboTax.com analyzes data and runs calculations for a consumer, saving them time and money by avoiding interaction with an accountant. However, sometimes replacing humans with a machine does not work so well. I personally dislike the self-checkout machines at CVS. They are too loud, and somehow always make some sort of mistake, requiring an attendant to come over and punch in a code, wasting time and failing to fulfill their basic function.

Although digital technology makes our lives easier in countless ways, many of which I might not even appreciate or understand, I think the ease and gratification of digital technologies can take a toll when humans become alienated from basic life tasks that might have their benefits. As "Castille" mentions - the constant use of and reliance on GoogleMaps might prevent people from actually gaining a sense of their environment and making observations that could help them memorize directions or landmarks, and allow them to be more self-reliant. Although digital technology allows developers, artists, educators, etc. to be really creative and productive, it also allows a lot of people to get away with being complacent.

[[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 18:20, 27 January 2014 (EST)

EDIT: I don't mean to say that TurboTax and self-checkout are examples of great social change, but they are signs of greater change like automation which will in turn affect standards for human interaction, self-reliance, etc. [[User:Sballister|Sballister]] 07:29, 28 January 2014 (EST)

There are several important factors to consider with the rise and spread of digital technologies. From a human interactive tactile context the PC has to be the front runner that covers many sociological concerns that I consider important.

Prior to the smart phone, the personal computer (PC) has to be (and still is) one of the most important aspects of all digital technologies to be thrust upon mankind, because of the potential power it endows upon its owner, knowingly or unknowingly; as it allows one to cross state lines, oceans and continents in mere seconds without much effort by its user. This, coupled with the widespread use of the internet provides an important context to the discussion from a sociological framework. To have so much computing power at ones finger tips, yet it is often relegated by its user to social networking, video games and entertainment, that human contact is subconsciously negated by the user. Having to get out of the house is becoming more of a chore due to what can be done online. Hiking out in the woods for field trips or class projects is becoming more and more a novelty for students and teachers alike. We can't wait to get laptops in the hands of students in third world countries, for what, so that they too can watch life on a screen, rather then be poor and kick a soccer ball around a field somewhere.

At the end of the day, from both a global and sociological standpoint, the widespread use of digital technologies has just as many concerns as it does rewards.[[User:Dancoron|Dancoron]] 23:08, 27 January 2014 (EST)

1. The launch of Sputnik changed many things — scientific, technological, military, and political — and the cold war of course spurred the beginnings of the internet in its earliest forms amongst the military, scientists, and researchers who used ARPAnet to transfer information, which fed American interest in the sciences and provided a foundation for the very digital technologies that now aid in the spread of our current digital technologies.

2. This leads into a second point, which is that intensified globalization of cultural elements — arguably beginning with WWII and intensifying in the '90s — promoted commercialization of the internet in the early '90s and put digital technology propagation into fast-forward. Suddenly we are able to access information on the other end of the world, rapidly, from the comfort of our own homes, and this allowed for ideas and digital technologies to spread over (again) the very digital technologies that made them possible. [[User:Twood|Twood]] 11:23, 28 January 2014 (EST)

Free speech ideals are one of the political, social/cultural, and even economic challenges of the spread of digital technologies. Some people want to be able to say or produce whatever they want on the World Wide Web. And some people think like the author of "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", that the internet community can police themselves. But how would the internet prevent child pornography, or financial fraud from occurring without the help of government agencies? These are real questions that are worth debate. No one has all the answers yet.

Socially and culturally the challenges presented by the spread of digital technologies, revolves around how we use these technologies to communicate. We are still deciding what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, socially and culturally. This social/cultural debate about the Internet is often about privacy-how much are we willing to share online. Each person is different and each culture/country feels different about how much should be revealed or restricted online. This leads us to economic results related to the spread of internet technologies.

One of the reasons that privacy is a concern with digital tech, is that companies want Internet user information. They want to know where you live, where you work, what are your favorite TV shows, and your food preferences, so that they can better sell to you. Economics also plays a role in how you will receive your Internet content/speed. Verizon and the FCC were recently in federal court arguing about whether Verizon could add additional charges to content providers, i.e. in theory, Verizon could charge these providers to reach their customers.

Politically, we have seen that digital technologies can be used to spy on citizens, and they also can be used by whistleblowers to shed light on secret activities by governments, as in the Edward Snowden incident.[[User:Mikewitwicki|Mikewitwicki]] 13:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)