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.