Mo/b/ rule

Activism, yeah! Wait, what?

Over break, I watched a documentary called The Thin Blue Line. It demonstrated an absurdly mixed-up murder case where a most likely innocent man was convicted and sentenced to death. It illustrated how institutions can gain their own momentum, whether because of incompetence or a misplaced sense of justice. I think the same issues apply to hacktivism, only I'd rather be on the bad side of a regulated institution than an uncontrollable faceless mob.

One story in China's Cyberposse illustrates my fear. A woman named Diebao made some insensitive comments about a recent earthquake in her blog. A "human flesh search" (internet vigilante mob) targeted her. Someone wished the earthquake would strike out at her in revenge, and another questioned whether she was human. That seems a little ironic considering her original "crime" was a dehumanizing remark on the internet, doesn't it? The mob often seems to become the victimizers and end up emulating the behavior they sought to destroy. The HBGary case also spiraled out of control quickly, with thousands of emails being stolen and one company member's social security number and other personal details posted on his hijacked Twitter. In the case of activism, I'm all for giving power to the people, and I love to see people getting politically motivated. But what happens when we become the thing we hate? As Zuckerman says, the internet grants "...the potential for amateur nastiness to be even more evil than our debased professional political culture." Who watches the watchmen?

So, while I'm glad the internet can let Bahrani activists get a better vantage point on their royal family's corruption (as Zuckerman points out), we have to draw the line somewhere. As Zuckerman illustrates, the internet is incredibly difficult to regulate. Groups like Anonymous are particularly hard to pin down, as they often don't even know other members' names. Sometimes these groups are localized in other countries, and escape our legal jurisdiction. So, I think the best solution is to have a powerful support structure for people who are victimized by online groups. The "cat bin lady" was put under police protection (also note the disproportionately violent suggestion of revenge in that article), but perhaps something more robust, akin to the Witness Protection program, will be needed.

Activists in dire situations are getting more clever about how to use the internet, and as I mentioned, that can be a good thing. I hope that the internet won't make us even more politically lazy, though. What if we had all of our protests online someday? On one hand, it lowers our barrier to entry. On the other hand, I'm afraid this will lead to "slacktivism," or groups of people doing inconsequential things like changing their profile pictures online and feeling content that they've made enough of a difference.

Hacktivism

Welcome back from spring break!

For the next couple weeks, we are focusing on the idea of activism on the web - specifically a kind of activism known as hacktivism. Hacktivism is a way of advancing a cause or staging a protest by hacking into the opponents' computer systems or websites, as opposed to more traditional forms of activism like demonstrations, letter-writing, or even coups.

For this week's post, consider the ethics of this form of activism, especially in reference to the specific articles and case studies you read. Also consider that these examples are international in scope, so American ideals (and laws) of free speech don't necessarily apply.

So: choose one of the examples of hacktivism and discuss its implications. Is it an effective means of protest or achieving justice? Does it seem to violate civil or human rights? Should there be more international regulation of such acts - and is such regulation even possible? What do you think the future might hold in terms of new forms of political protest online, or what might the consequences of such acts be?

Copyrights

I myself have partaken in copyright infringement. I did not know at the time I had though. Like I've seen in many of the posts, you order something off the internet and when it gets to you, you find out it's copyrighted material. I "purchased" a clip of video about hybrids to use in a presentation for school. I got an email saying that it was mine to use however I wanted. However, when I put it into the video editing software it had a "watermark" voice that would repeat "this is an illegal copy" when I tried to get my money back the person would not respond.

I can understand how not obeying these laws can be for the "owner." I could imagine it being like playing a video game and beating the level, then someone else comes in and says "I did that" and they get the credit. For some though it helps, for example one of Taylor Swifts singles leaked on to the web early and it actually HELPED sell her new CD.

The movie industry tries to scare people away from selling pirated movies by using ads. The ads that they used to show were very good in my opinion. It compares things to make you realize that pirating is against the law. It definaitly put things in to perspective for me!

Copyright infringement is against the law, however I really don't see everyone who breaks it getting caught. It's something that you just have to deal with. As long as their are rules, their will be people who want to test/break them!

Also just wanted to share this link. It's a website about Lessig.

©

Today we are in the middle of another "war" against "piracy."

The Internet has provoked this war.

How you might feel as someone wanting to use copyrighted material in a video or other work…

If I thought about using copyrighted material in my personal work, I would (truthfully) just rip it, but only bits n pieces of it. I would get creative with it, as creative commons states. That stupid little C can cause many legal issues, after watching the creative commons video, it felt like we had someone on our side. lol

…and as someone who owns copyrighted material that someone else wants to use in THEIR work. Where do you stand?

I guess in this case, it would only matter to me depending on what that other person is doing with my work. For the most part, I don’t think I’d make a huge deal with lawsuits or anything. If I post or share something online of mine with copyright infringements, I would probably also state that if you want to use my stuff contact me for clear footage. I realize what I post online is all public and there are immense amount of ways to rip my work. I’m all for creativity an sharing just not complete plagiarism.

Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular concentration of market power.

The internet may be harming copyright owners a bit, but for the most part I don’t think so. Why? Because everything is digital and online now, and privacy/piracy as we’ve discussed before is almost nonexistent. I also feel that if you are going to post your copyrighted video online, than you want people to see it, you want it to be shared. The more views you get, the more popularity your video gains. More so, depending on how many views your video gets, more than likely people will want to create something similar to your video to gain the same/similar recognition. Am I making sense?

I do not think that all this copyright business is killing creative industries, instead I think all this ‘exclusive’ material is actually sparking more creative fever. Given, not all of it may be positive thoughts (because there are some terrible people out there) but many of us look to special videos to gain knowledge and experiment with videos and things on our own. The more barriers we see, the harder we try to break them, and ultimately learning that breaking code is a genius in itself.

Remixing and reposting, I think, does outweigh the harm for video content, because as I mentioned videos get posted online in hopes of it going viral. People want hits and views because that how they gain popularity and at some point profit off a successful original channel. When a fan reposts an artist’s video he/she is trying to spread the word not thinking about harming the artist themselves (probably). Many videos deal with humor, and also a lot of times fans are trying to catch their favorite artists attention.

As far as remixing copyright material making our culture better? I don’t see how that correlates. please someone feel free to explain or elaborate on that aspect for me.

What's Mine is Mine, and What's Yours is Mine

     First, I'd like to point out that the image I used is probably copyrighted to someone, somewhere. How does this make me feel? Absolutely indifferent. It was on the internet, the eighth image that showed up in an image search for "copyright". When I clicked on it there were no pop-ups asking me to pay to use this image, or write an email requesting permission. I just assumed that it was there for me to use.
     I have to admit though, that I do feel somewhat bad for the copyright owners in general, especially when it comes to music. With the internet, it's so easy to rip and torrent music now that I wonder how much they actually make from their songs and albums. I personally have not purchased any music since about 2004, when I got my iPod, yet my collection of music has grown from 70 CDs to over 4,500 songs (and I'm just getting started). I "borrow" from my friends - some who have actually purchased the music, some who have not - but the truth of the matter is that stuff is copyrighted, and it's not being acquired properly - it's stealing.
     I know that if I was the singer or songwriter and I looked at just how much of my hard work and creativity was stolen, I'd be furious. It's like when your younger sister copies your hairstyle or buys a matching shirt - you are so ticked off because she's copying you, and your unique idea is gone.
     Mark Helprin wrote an article called A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright? in which he basically rants about the fact that his copyright expires 70 years after his death. In a way, I sympathize with him - sure, you created something, it should be yours forever. But 70 years after your death? When you're dead and gone, does it really matter that you make full price on something you wrote? To me, 70 years is reasonable because it's inherited by your family and should help provide money for your kids and grandkids. After that, it should be up to someone else to think of something "new" and be creative. Just think... if we all had one person in our family come up with the "next big thing", had it copyrighted and we lived off the royalties forever, there would be nothing new! Maybe that's a scretch, but it's definitely worth considering.
     I really can't form a definite opinion about whether the laws are fair or not, because I've never created anything of significance, and I don't necessarily plan to in the future. Maybe one day I'll write the next great American novel and then my opinion will change. For now, I just want to watch free music videos on YouTube and 'borrow' cute pictures of Wall-E to fulfill my blog assignment!

Copyright, Fair Use, and Piracy

This week’s journey into the realm of copyright, fair use, and piracy certainly left my head spinning due to what appeared to be valid concerns and arguments on all sides of the issue.

The “Property” reading segment was the most challenging for me, the author did a good job of breaking down the fundamental differences between the copyright laws beginning in the 1790’s as a way of protecting the works of individual creators, against the publishers, thus giving the creator’s more incentive to do more. Then, he followed the evolution of the copyright laws and what they in fact give us today where: “Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was not” (p.43). As technology has evolved, so has the ability to find people who infringe on a person’s copyright. Even if they didn’t know it, I certainly didn’t think that fan fiction was an infringement, or that tampering with the computer code on some electronic devices was an infringement as well.

In regards to the fair use issue, especially since I’m and avid YouTube fan, now I’m even more confused. If you take the policies literally, most of what I watch could be a potential Terms of Service Violation. I see music videos posted by private people, people performing songs, and even teaching people how to play their favorite songs – could that be an infringement as well? Are we at the stage where it is legally permissible to sue a person because they are on YouTube giving a lesson on how to play Stairway to Heaven? I hope not, but I’m certainly going to be more careful in the future.

The piracy issue, that seemed pretty black and white to me, I’m certainly guilty of making my share of LimeWire downloads ten years ago, but for the most part I’m clean now. Especially since my brother was one of the people targeted in a massive RIAA sting and he wound up settling out of court for $4,000.00. No downloads for me after that. I don’t have a problem making a back up copy of something for myself, but posting something for the masses to download for free, does still seem like the wrong thing to do.

It has been an interesting ten years watching the evolution of the music business in particular in the face of all the p2p sharing. This isn’t the first time the music industry has had to change its ways. Back in the 1920’s the music industry started suing radio stations for playing music for free. They felt that if it was played for free, nobody would go out an buy it. Funny, how the more things change, the more things stay the same.

Copyright Laws Should Not Impede Social Progress

As a Western society we have relied on structuring models for the advancement of our civilization. Beginning in England, copyright laws were established to foment scientific and cultural progress by motivating people with rewards. We have advanced as a society through inventions which have been built upon by others throughout the years. As such, while copyright laws serve to motivate progress in society, the laws should be flexible enough to allow for others to build upon them and drive advancement.

Helprin argues that copyright laws should be extended to secure reward for descendants on the grounds that it will keep motivating invention. While I do agree that rewarding motivates ideas and works to keep being produced, extending the law would just make it harder for other people to build upon the initial idea. Ideas are part of a society regardless of who invented them because they are produced in a particular localized moment in time. Making them available to the public after certain time enhances the society's contextualized history. Moreover, it enables the society to reinvent and build upon them, and make progress towards new eras of cultural and scientific knowledge.

This is not to say that authors go without credit on their work. As an author, I feel that my work can be used and I should be cited by the authors that use it. Likewise, I like to credit any work that I borrow. It is an ethical issue not to pass work that it's not ours as our own. Robbing ideas leads to authors persuing stricter copyright laws, and the whole society, not just offenders, is affected.

Using inventions without proper permission or citation has been an issue on the net world recently. The internet has made illegal use of music and film material rampant. Though, ideas and works have also been shared without permission, the music and movie industry has suffered the most. Therefore, the sharing of these materials on the internet should be under more control and authors should make their work easily and inexpensively accesible online to avoid abuse of their inventions. It will benefit authors by having more control over their works and earnings as well as benefit the public by having it accessible at a reasonable cost and easy access.

Finally, individual ownership of work has the rewards of motivating invention and progress. Tightening the laws protecting invention leads other authors to alienate their works from the social context in which they were born. It makes it harder for others to build upon them if they have to consult descendants everytime they even think of using someone else's ideas. These people may not be as knowledgeable as their ancestors about the work or may not even care about the contributions to society. Thus, copyright laws should not be extended and a percentage of financial gain can be established for descendants whenever usage of their ancestors' work acquires monetary gain. This way future inventors have access to ideas and descendants are keep financially secured and happy.