Week 10-Final Thoughts

I have been thinking about the take away message from the readings this term in Big Thinkers and, more important, I have been contemplating how I might implement what I have learned in my role as an advisor. The main thing I think I have learned is that copyright has a purpose and that purpose is not to solely protect the work of the creator but to encourage creativity in both the arts and the sciences. This perspective has changed how I view copyright and its importance in our culture. From Boyle’s (2008) The Public Domain, I learned about the importance of the public domain. How with the implementation of the DMCA the culture of our life time may be locked up and unavailable to create new works. That this change to the copyright law may prevent material from being changed into digital formats even when the copyright holder cannot be located. From Lessig’s (2008) Remix, I learned about the hybrid economy where people create and give their rights away and the economy of creating viable markets by sharing knowledge. In Levine’s (2011) Free Ride, there was the message about the destruction of our media culture by those who think music, movies, and other digital works should be free and the affects of piracy on the media economy.

While all of these provided a context that will help me teach good digital citizenship and why it is important to respect copyright, I think the most important aspect of the readings is my increased understanding of the other part of the copyright mandate which is the right of fair use as discussed by Aufderheide and Jaszi (2011) in Reclaiming Fair Use. With an understanding of fair use, I hope to be able to create more engaging materials for students. As advisors, we want to create information that students will use. In the past, most of my self-help materials have been handouts on paper with no images. The idea when creating support materials is to ensure no copyright laws are infringed upon. I think I now understand that I can use the current culture to create handouts or videos that may attract the attention of students that, if read, will help students be successful.

In addition, I feel an understanding of copyright could impact the classes I teach. Knowing that I can incorporate culture within my teaching, will increase the connection students have with the materials. With a better understanding that fair use is implemented only when there is a questioning of my right to use copyrighted materials, I feel more confident in myself as I use the culture created by others to create materials that will assist me with advising and teaching. The knowledge that I need to document my thought processes so that if questioned I can explain why I think fair use can be claimed will help me think logically about my use of copyright protected materials.

So the take away for me is that copyright is complex because it has two provisions that are in direct conflict with each other. That both parts of copyright support the purpose of copyright which is to encourage the growth of knowledge within our culture and encourage creativity along with the right to use that knowledge and the products of other’s creativity to continue to build on that knowledge base.

Benkler

I like reading. It is probably the activity I have engaged in the most throughout my life. When I read books written for wide distribution, I usually can understand them. So when I start reading, it is my expectation that I will be able to join in on the conversation. This was not the case with Yochai Benkler's book entitled The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. As I read, I tried to follow what he was saying but found myself researching the concept he was discussing more than reading the book. I say this so that if I am off on what I say, you will know it is because I may not have understood what I was reading. I will also confess that I have never taken an economics course nor really engaged with the subject expect at a very basic level.

After reading the first few chapters, I think the thing that I liked the most was the explanation on the peer production and sharing. As a person who participated in SETI@home, I was excited to see referenced other projects that used small personal computers to create a super computer. I know from our family’s experience with SETI@home, it was something that created in our home a connection to our family’s love of astronomy. All we had to do was leave our computer on when we were not using it. The program did the rest. It never slowed the computer down. There was no inconvenience in assisting with the project to find extraterrestrial life. Like Benkler said in chapter 3, we felt good about what we were doing to advance the field of science studying radio waves. I think the bigger picture was if a regular radio wave pattern was to be found, it just might be found from the computations completed on our computer. The idea was just too good to not participate. 

The second idea I would like to discuss is free software. When I first heard about people giving away programs they had spend hours writing, I wanted to know what the catch was, and then, felt guilty because I felt I should contribute something. At some level, I felt there was something wrong with this business model. Now, using free software is an everyday occurrence. Moodle is free software that Western moved to using exclusively soon after I came to Western. We switched because we could save money as a university and because the program met the needs of everyone on campus. When something doesn’t work as expected within the program, it is often still under development. This does not mean the program is not functional it just means that some of the bells still need to be tuned.   

The thing with free software is ,as Benkler points out in chapter 3, this method of producing a product should not work. As I have stated already, I am not an economist, but I know that giving away a product for free does not pay the bills or keep the lights on in an office. Yet, money is being made not on the software but on support and in the customizing of the software to each customer’s needs. I do not think this is a business model that can be used by a corporation to create a new software product because it takes a certain level of dedication to develop a product that will be given away. I am not sure this level of dedication can be bought. Free software is here to stay, however. As it continues to create markets and as it continues to keep up with products that are not free, it will become a new model for production.

Blog 4- Aufderdeide and Jaszi

Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi (2011) made a compelling argument for fair use in their book Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. In chapter seven, they explained the licensing and copyright issues confronting documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers were supposed to be documenting culture and yet they changed the appearance of the culture they filmed in order to ensure they were not infringing on any copyrighted material. The reason they engaged in this behavior was to ensure their films could be insured because without insurance, they would have no market. Their subsequent efforts  to draft a statement outlining best practices for fair use and the success they achieved created a sense of hope that in the madness of the copyright chaos fair use could become a powerful tool. I think Aufderheide and Jaszi should be commended for encouraging and helping various groups identify best practices within their fields for implementing fair use.  

In chapter eight, the authors revealed that the guidelines currently being promoted by librarians and educators were based on faulty guidelines that were supported by the industries who would be best served by limited use of fair use. These guidelines, while not part of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, became associated with the law because they were read into the congressional record. Because they favored a strict interpretation that limited the use of fair use, the holders of copyright continued to promote the guidelines as the definitive word on how to interpret fair use. Educators and librarians ability to perform their jobs was affected. The development of a code of best practices to be used when implementing media in education helped to create a new environment for teachers where they could teach using appropriate material and educate their students on how to use fair use to create new works of culture. 

The book, Reclaiming Fair Use changed how I viewed copyright and fair use. If I could, I would create a code of best practices for advisors and other staff in higher education. We too teach and influence college students on a regular basis. I have learned about amazing ways to use technology to teach and yet there remains a fear that I or my students will infringe on copyright if I assign a project using technology. In a sense,  my ability to teach students is being hampered just as documentary filmmakers and educators were. While there are similarities in teaching and advising, I would hesitate to assume I could use the same best practices as teachers since I am working with adults and not children. 

According to Aufderheide and Jaszi, Fair use is a valuable tool that needs to become a part of our culture once again. Even though copyright laws have become stronger, fair use is as much a right as copyright.  Their book outlines how to ensure fair use is implemented appropriately. It also clears up where the confusion started and how to end it. The key element of the book is the idea that any group or individual can, with education, learn how to employ fair use to create.  I am encouraged that even though locked up by copyright, our culture is still free to be used to create new works.

CSE 619 Post 3: Levine

As with all issues, there are multiple viewpoints each competing to draw a crowd of supporters to help advance their cause. The issues surrounding copyright are no exception. This week as I read Robert Levine's (2011) Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back I realized one of the victims of the copyright laws is educators.  As we try to teach our students to be good digital citizens, it becomes difficult to do when we find the copyright laws difficult to navigate. With rules and regulations so complex and with a large number of internet users engaging in what is considered copyright infringement, it becomes difficult to teach students how to appropriately engage in using the internet. Often times, as in the use of YouTube, educators are not aware that their usage provides revenue to someone and so their use of the service constitutes commercial use. Navigating the copyright sea is fraught with dangerous shoals that can make it difficult to instruct our students on being good digital citizens.  

At the same time, as we try to educate students about the legality of downloading media, we are competing with companies and internet providers who are making money off of those who are engaging in this type of behavior. According to Levine (Chapter 10, p. 241) these companies, like those who are downloading, all seem to claim they cannot be held responsible due to the DMCA.  The internet providers say they are not responsible because of the way the laws have been written and the illegal down loaders say they are not responsible because the files are available.  After all, who wants to pay for something that can be obtained for free. Indeed, some educators probably do not see the reason why they should pay for something that can be obtained for free. It is difficult to tell our students to not copy and paste information from the web, when there are news services making money from gathering news stories others have written and making a profit out of collecting the work of others (Chapter 4, p 127). In other words, how do we teach good digital citizenship when the vast majority of those using the internet are engaged in breaking copyright laws? 

Levine's solutions to help stabilize the dissemination of culture on the internet makes sense. If internet service providers are held accountable for the content that runs through their services and online locker services for information stored on their sites, then the biggest offenders could be shut down. Locating illegal sources could become more difficult to locate than legitimate sources. People would be encouraged to purchase rather than pilfer their media (p. 241). When, as Levine states, the technology industry receives benefits at the expense of those who are creating, then something needs to be done. The technology may not have existed at the creation of the DMCA to allow internet providers to manage the content that flows through their service, but it now exists as is evidenced by YouTubes success at screening copyrighted work before posting. 

Once it becomes the norm to purchase media, then educators will be in a better situation to teach students how to be good digital citizens. Hopefully, in the process, the laws will be rewritten to allow educators to understand when and how to use copyrighted works without infringement.  They will also be able to explain to students how to locate legal works that can be used to enhance school projects based on the creative commons license endorsed by Boyle in The Public Domain. There is no one solution for every creative endeavor. Some will chose to give their works away while others will chose to maintain their rights to distribute their works. A solution that does not allow both of these groups to exist, cannot produce a viable creative culture.

Week 2 Post on Boyle

(Note on this weeks post: I wrote my post and then caught gz's comments on our posts. I will adjust my posts in the future.)

     It is difficult to argue with James Boyle's (2008) assertions in, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind.  After all, he is a professor of law and he works extensively with copyright and intellectual rights.  Throughout the book, Boyle references Thomas Jefferson warning on intellectual rights approximately twenty-five times  according to the index (p. 307).  One of Boyle's strongest arguments seems to be if the law does not pass the Jeffersonian warning, then it should not be passed.  His main assertion is that intellectual property rights should be limited in duration and last only as necessary.  The idea should then pass into the public domain where other innovators can create and improvise from the idea (p. 21).  I can agree with Boyle that intellectual property rights are fundamentally different from property rights.  One protects creative ideas that someone else may have discovered if given time.  The other protects a physical asset that one can own and cannot be given away or taken without the person losing the property.  

     I agree with, and even appreciate his allegory of the farmers'  tale used throughout chapter five to explain the impending lock down of the internet and the public domain.  Indeed, I too became concerned that the figurative use of wire cutters were declared illegal (p. 85).  I lamented the fact that I cannot fast forward through the obligatory copyright warning and/or advertisements that the video maker deems I should watch in their entirety if I want to view the movie.  As the lock down became about what the industry wants rather than what is best practices for intellectual copyrights, I also wondered how intellectual property rights began looking more like a physical asset.  His arguments remain compelling and I catch his sense of urgency that our rights as the public are being curtailed when the rights of the entertainment industry and other corporate industries lock down the public domain.  I agree with Boyle that when an industry can determine which devises can legally access their copyrighted material then the balance of the copyright holder's control has tipped too far in their favor at the limiting of the public domain. 

     When I began reading chapter six entitled "I Got a Mashup", I was expecting to once again cheer Boyle's efforts to protect the rights of the public.  I fully expected to once again agree with his assertions.  This did not happen.  His use of the Ray Charles story of the song "I Got a Woman" helped to illustrate his point that without public domain and a limited term for the copyright coverage of music, our culture stands to lose out on a generation of being able to create as freely as the previous generation. 

     The story, as told by Boyle, explains how Ray Charles began by imitating the style of Nat King Cole.  This is common practice for artists and occurs in most fields.  Ray Charles, as is usually the case, decided to create his own style of playing.  He used a public domain song to create a derivative work that helped launch his career to a new level.  All is well.  

     Where it breaks down, I believe, is when Boyle maintains that once a musician composes a song and records it, others should be able to use parts of the recorded music to create something new.  He maintains it is just like what Ray Charles did with his music.  I do not agree with this assertion.  If you want to play and record the notes and imitate a musicians style this should be allowed.  Once an artist records a song, it becomes more than an intellectual property.  Becca Scott (personal communication, April 18, 2013), a composer, stated, "It's not imitation; it's not even impersonation.  It's more like identity theft when someone takes notes you have played and tries to say they are creating something new."  Each musician has a unique way of playing that belongs to them.  We can usually recognize our favorite artists' style even before we hear their names.  Just because the internet and technology allow for easy copying, does not mean the sound of a musician should be considered public domain.  Their music, yes.  Let the mixers create their own tracks and play the five notes on their own.  This is what occurs when text is quoted.   The musician should be able to control when and where their voice or their performance of a piece of music is used.  Mixers are not imitating like Ray Charles.  They are not reworking a piece of music to make it their own creation.  Mixers are actually pretending to be other musicians.  They then claim they are creating something new.  Perhaps they are, but then so is the identity thief who steals your information. 

      With that said, I also think my argument needs a caveat. There should be defined times when the works of others can be used without worry of copyright infringement. The two instances I can name would be for educational purposes and for personal use. The reason being, the use of material in both of these instances typically is not for monetary gain and those using the work lack the resources or the means to recreate the material. When students create a video for class, they should be allowed to upload it with music that helps them express their ideas. Teachers should not have to spent hours determining if their students have infringed on a copyright law.

Week 1: Lessig

     The book Remix by Lawrence Lessig (2008) offers a compelling argument against the direction of the current copyright laws and regulations.  For example a few years ago, I attended a birthday party at a home that was out of my normal socioeconomic status.  This home had a music room where all the party goers gathered so that some of the guests could entertain the rest of us.  No one was excluded from performing, but the majority of us did not actively participate on the program other than as audience. 

     Lessig referred to this as the RW culture.  The performers were interacting with created works to make something new.  According to Lessig, this is the type of activity that should be allowed to occur. Indeed, it was not unlike what Lessig said Sousa insisted should be allowed to occur (p.25).
  

     I think before the advent of RO technology, this was the norm.  Sousa, Lessig maintained, felt that once the amateur began comparing his performance to the professional, this type of activity would cease to exist.  I am not sure though that looking at the copyright laws of today, there weren't multiple copyright law infringements that day because someone captured the performances on video.  Thus the RW culture clashed with the RO culture as this creative performance copied the works of others.
 

     In Lessig's book, the most compelling evidence that something is wrong with current copyright laws and the wars being waged occurred in the introduction to the book. My sense of fairness fairly bristled when I read about the mom who videotaped her son dancing to a song he heard. The ensuing legal battle because she posted the video on YouTube for family to view left me speechless.  Then, as he explained the war on our youth and their label as pirates, thieves, and so forth, I suddenly became interested in what I thought would be a casual conversation about a dry subject. 

     As Lessig went on to explain the difference between the RO and the RW cultures, I became increasingly alarmed. The RO culture refers to read only and is when a creative work is created and others view it, read it, or engage with the material as it is and as the creator deemed the work be shared. The RW culture  refers to the ability to both read and write. The process of interacting with the creator's work can occur at multiple levels.  It could be sharing the work in its entirety, breaking apart the creator's work and making something new from this work or performing the work (p. 28).
 

     The copyright war is all about protecting the rights of innovators and creators of knowledge. The current war, as it is being waged, if won, will do so at the expense of losing the right to protect our culture and the sharing of our culture.  I found, I too, wanted to take the side of those who have been deemed pirates.  As I realized the support of the RO culture at the expense of the RW culture would bring about a less vibrant culture, the topic became about gaining knowledge so that I could teach others about the ramifications of what is occurring in our nation's capital. 

     Currently, according to Lessig, the law makers are creating laws that declare war on this country's citizens and legally allow corporations to harass individuals who chose to interact with the culture of their day when they post a video of their son or daughter with a copyrighted work within the video.  I think we all need to become aware of what is happening and work to ensure changes in copyright laws that protect our culture and our right to interact with it in appropriate ways.   

Source information:

Lawrence, L. (2008). Remix. New York, NY: Penguin Books.