Monday, December 3, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Post 12 - Big Discussions
In a discussion published by Cloudera, conversation is sparked around "the “three V’s” — volume (you have lots of data), variety (you have lots of different kinds of data) and velocity (it’s arriving at a furious rate). Any one of those conditions can create trouble for current data management infrastructure." Data management infrastructure has a huge basis in "Big Data."As was made clear in Six Provocations for Big Data, the term "Big Data" refers not to data that takes a large amount of computer power to process, but to networked data. "Its value comes from the patterns that can be derived by making connections between pieces of data, about an individual, about individuals in relation to others, about groups of people, or simply about the structure of information itself." Just like innovations of Google's organization and discovery tools, the connectivity of Big Data has implications for almost every facet of life in which we process information, whether we are online or not.
Big Data, as produced, consumed, and analyzed by human individuals within networks, is in as neutral or objective as any human can be. "Just as Ford changed the way we made cars – and then transformed work itself – Big Data has emerged a system of knowledge that is already changing the objects of knowledge, while also having the power to inform how we understand human networks and community." To summarize Danah Boyd's words, as we change Big Data, it changes us.
We are constantly recycling data and information within complex networks of connectivity incorporating people, their environment, and products of both. In a post called The Thing About Networks, or Big Data Rhetoric, the author demonstrates that "data—especially social network data—has joined the embed, repurposing, and mashup cultures historically associated (in terms of the web, at least) with video and audio." The problem with this is the three v's; the phenomenon is too quick and too large for us to not run, stupid as humans are, headlong into issues involving how we use these networks and the ethics behind Big Data.
One of the larger issues is that we seem to forget that Big Data, as it relates so closely to humanity, is in no way without bias. "Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea; to the contrary, data should be cooked with care. Geoffrey Bowker (2005, p. 183-184)" This does not mean it isn't valuable or useful, in fact much of the readings discussed the problems in the research being done on social media and Big Data.
In the Cloudera discussion they insisted that "the Big Data movement is also about technology and the scalability of how we can leverage industry standard hardware to spread out the hard problems and solve them much more quickly." The use of Big Data to map human patterns and networks allows us more accurate guesses at "big questions." Unlike those in the Cloudera discussion, however, I don't think they help us answer them. "Big" is a word used in these contexts to illustrate large scale, essentially of complexity. Just as there is not one way to tackle the use of Big Data, there will very rarely be a single answer to our big problems and big questions.
Big Data, as produced, consumed, and analyzed by human individuals within networks, is in as neutral or objective as any human can be. "Just as Ford changed the way we made cars – and then transformed work itself – Big Data has emerged a system of knowledge that is already changing the objects of knowledge, while also having the power to inform how we understand human networks and community." To summarize Danah Boyd's words, as we change Big Data, it changes us.
We are constantly recycling data and information within complex networks of connectivity incorporating people, their environment, and products of both. In a post called The Thing About Networks, or Big Data Rhetoric, the author demonstrates that "data—especially social network data—has joined the embed, repurposing, and mashup cultures historically associated (in terms of the web, at least) with video and audio." The problem with this is the three v's; the phenomenon is too quick and too large for us to not run, stupid as humans are, headlong into issues involving how we use these networks and the ethics behind Big Data.
One of the larger issues is that we seem to forget that Big Data, as it relates so closely to humanity, is in no way without bias. "Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea; to the contrary, data should be cooked with care. Geoffrey Bowker (2005, p. 183-184)" This does not mean it isn't valuable or useful, in fact much of the readings discussed the problems in the research being done on social media and Big Data.
In the Cloudera discussion they insisted that "the Big Data movement is also about technology and the scalability of how we can leverage industry standard hardware to spread out the hard problems and solve them much more quickly." The use of Big Data to map human patterns and networks allows us more accurate guesses at "big questions." Unlike those in the Cloudera discussion, however, I don't think they help us answer them. "Big" is a word used in these contexts to illustrate large scale, essentially of complexity. Just as there is not one way to tackle the use of Big Data, there will very rarely be a single answer to our big problems and big questions.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Post 10 - One Step Away from Social Media
There were some very interesting points in the two assigned readings of Tom Slee's blog posts. In the first, titled "More Facebook, More Egypt," he makes the point that people "need to keep a clear distinction between what it is they like and the corporation that provides it." Many people today see sites and the internet they run on as an entitlement, when really we are paying for it in more ways than cash.
Notably, it has been used as a tool for activism. "Facebook was permitted, and the educated, urban members of the younger generation adopted it and used it to push up against the limits of acceptable dialog." Also note how he says the government "permitted" Facebook. There are many instances where we don't realize what is blocked on the internet in other countries, let alone our own. The censorship happens before we know it, and there's no obvious bleeping noise to indicate what we're missing out on.
Unfortunately, Facebook is being integrated into our lives in both an addictive and compelling fashion. As Tom Slee put it, "like other generational phenomena, it seems that Facebook plays into a sense of identity for students and youth." Not only that, but Facebook provides an instant placebo of socialization, and has many implications not just for activism but also for how we interact with people on a daily basis. "They felt as though they needed to be there [...] because they got to connect with someone there that they couldn't connect with elsewhere." Another important implication is how it allows us to reach out to people at times or in places we couldn't have otherwise contacted these people. This sort of contact creates metaphorical wormholes and disjoints our network of relationships: we can not have friends in any country we want, and contact them any time of the day we are able to access the internet.
Slee also talks about "generational spaces," or what I interpret as a sense of culture. He claims we have adopted Facebook as a sort of generational space, like we would come together at a popular mall, geek out over a favorite pop icon, or surf select sites on the web. "Generational spaces can be both public & private", in physical and metaphorical space. His warning, however, is that "if Facebook is a cultural phenomenon, then its meaning and role will change as it becomes mainstream - we need to treat it like we treat the record companies, the mainstream media, and our phone companies. Necessary, but not to be trusted." Facebook is a corporation like any other, and will always have separate motivations and values than what it's users hold.
Corporations are a sort of double edged sword, however. It's impossible to expect them to always operate in the public's best interest and be honest 100% of the time, but their resources are often invaluable, even if only in terms of convenience. "Activists have always needed to be both in and against the media. Artists have always had a dysfunctional relationship with the industry that manages them." A band may not enjoy signing with a record company, but their ability to advance in their career grows with such a relationship.
In Slee's second post, "Blogs and Bullets: Breaking Down Social Media", he implies that we need to stop integrating Facebook into the term "social media" because the distinction is important. How we interpret words matter to Slee, and to those who use them, whether they know it or not. Like words, however, new technologies are so commonplace that we meld them into the background of our lives, like many important issues, without careful consideration of how their presence affects our choices. "The Internet is still pretty new, so we tend to look at it as a definable thing, but digital technologies have now become so multifaceted and so enmeshed in other facets of our lives that such a broad brush obscures more than it reveals."
When considering Facebook as an untrustworthy corporation, just consider when you are presented with a Terms of Service agreement during an online transaction, monetary or not. How often do you read them? "If we make ourselves talk about Facebook in particular, rather than social media in general, then it is clear that issues with their terms of service, privacy policies, real-name policies and so on are not details in the big picture of networked technologies but are central to the potential of Facebook as a tool for effecting political change." If you want to compel yourself to read them, as they do matter, just watch South Park's episode merging the power of Terms of Service agreements and themes from the horror movie "The Human Centipede." Their contracts are basically an exchange of their service for your information, and thus are more important than many of us like to admit.
More so are these implications important for countries with tighter restrictions. "Given how important privacy is under authoritarian regimes, terms of service matter." Just think of all those shows in the media that make fun of the people who sign documents without reading them, and end up in a contract with a crooked character (classically Satan) who exploits their blind trust. That could easily illustrate cases of signing online policies without reading them. Of course, who really has time? Time itself is a marketable commodity we do not readily think about, though I doubt many people argue whether or not "time is money," as we are all familiar with the worth of efficiency.
Yet another point Tom Slee makes is that the "Internet takes its place as one part of the real world, not a separate entity." Evidence that not many people really believe this (though they may know it as true) is how common it is to commit online theft of movies, music, you name it. In court, "many Internet cases are argued within the bounds of existing trade, intellectual property, privacy, and other laws. Disputes that seemed to be specific to the digital realm turn out to be (with the exception of net neutrality) about trade law." The internet may seem a great escape into a personal realm that sits in a rectangular frame on our desktop, but in reality that escape is to the same reality as everything offline, just in different contexts.
Technology has advance so quickly that we now merge together everything into one device on our pocket. With smart phones we can bring our computer with us, but there is still a huge difference in Facebook on our phone versus on our desktop computer at home. "Mobility makes a difference, and lumping SMS messaging together with blogs just confuses things." Each technology provides its own potential for media in each of their unique contexts. This potential, however, seems to be wasted on a generation that would rather have time looking at pictures of cats than reach out to help those in need of capable activists and the wildfire of social networking online. "We are losing a diversity of institutions in the move to a digital terrain, and it is worth investigating what impact that loss has."
Notably, it has been used as a tool for activism. "Facebook was permitted, and the educated, urban members of the younger generation adopted it and used it to push up against the limits of acceptable dialog." Also note how he says the government "permitted" Facebook. There are many instances where we don't realize what is blocked on the internet in other countries, let alone our own. The censorship happens before we know it, and there's no obvious bleeping noise to indicate what we're missing out on.
Unfortunately, Facebook is being integrated into our lives in both an addictive and compelling fashion. As Tom Slee put it, "like other generational phenomena, it seems that Facebook plays into a sense of identity for students and youth." Not only that, but Facebook provides an instant placebo of socialization, and has many implications not just for activism but also for how we interact with people on a daily basis. "They felt as though they needed to be there [...] because they got to connect with someone there that they couldn't connect with elsewhere." Another important implication is how it allows us to reach out to people at times or in places we couldn't have otherwise contacted these people. This sort of contact creates metaphorical wormholes and disjoints our network of relationships: we can not have friends in any country we want, and contact them any time of the day we are able to access the internet.
Slee also talks about "generational spaces," or what I interpret as a sense of culture. He claims we have adopted Facebook as a sort of generational space, like we would come together at a popular mall, geek out over a favorite pop icon, or surf select sites on the web. "Generational spaces can be both public & private", in physical and metaphorical space. His warning, however, is that "if Facebook is a cultural phenomenon, then its meaning and role will change as it becomes mainstream - we need to treat it like we treat the record companies, the mainstream media, and our phone companies. Necessary, but not to be trusted." Facebook is a corporation like any other, and will always have separate motivations and values than what it's users hold.
Corporations are a sort of double edged sword, however. It's impossible to expect them to always operate in the public's best interest and be honest 100% of the time, but their resources are often invaluable, even if only in terms of convenience. "Activists have always needed to be both in and against the media. Artists have always had a dysfunctional relationship with the industry that manages them." A band may not enjoy signing with a record company, but their ability to advance in their career grows with such a relationship.
In Slee's second post, "Blogs and Bullets: Breaking Down Social Media", he implies that we need to stop integrating Facebook into the term "social media" because the distinction is important. How we interpret words matter to Slee, and to those who use them, whether they know it or not. Like words, however, new technologies are so commonplace that we meld them into the background of our lives, like many important issues, without careful consideration of how their presence affects our choices. "The Internet is still pretty new, so we tend to look at it as a definable thing, but digital technologies have now become so multifaceted and so enmeshed in other facets of our lives that such a broad brush obscures more than it reveals."
When considering Facebook as an untrustworthy corporation, just consider when you are presented with a Terms of Service agreement during an online transaction, monetary or not. How often do you read them? "If we make ourselves talk about Facebook in particular, rather than social media in general, then it is clear that issues with their terms of service, privacy policies, real-name policies and so on are not details in the big picture of networked technologies but are central to the potential of Facebook as a tool for effecting political change." If you want to compel yourself to read them, as they do matter, just watch South Park's episode merging the power of Terms of Service agreements and themes from the horror movie "The Human Centipede." Their contracts are basically an exchange of their service for your information, and thus are more important than many of us like to admit.
More so are these implications important for countries with tighter restrictions. "Given how important privacy is under authoritarian regimes, terms of service matter." Just think of all those shows in the media that make fun of the people who sign documents without reading them, and end up in a contract with a crooked character (classically Satan) who exploits their blind trust. That could easily illustrate cases of signing online policies without reading them. Of course, who really has time? Time itself is a marketable commodity we do not readily think about, though I doubt many people argue whether or not "time is money," as we are all familiar with the worth of efficiency.
Yet another point Tom Slee makes is that the "Internet takes its place as one part of the real world, not a separate entity." Evidence that not many people really believe this (though they may know it as true) is how common it is to commit online theft of movies, music, you name it. In court, "many Internet cases are argued within the bounds of existing trade, intellectual property, privacy, and other laws. Disputes that seemed to be specific to the digital realm turn out to be (with the exception of net neutrality) about trade law." The internet may seem a great escape into a personal realm that sits in a rectangular frame on our desktop, but in reality that escape is to the same reality as everything offline, just in different contexts.
Technology has advance so quickly that we now merge together everything into one device on our pocket. With smart phones we can bring our computer with us, but there is still a huge difference in Facebook on our phone versus on our desktop computer at home. "Mobility makes a difference, and lumping SMS messaging together with blogs just confuses things." Each technology provides its own potential for media in each of their unique contexts. This potential, however, seems to be wasted on a generation that would rather have time looking at pictures of cats than reach out to help those in need of capable activists and the wildfire of social networking online. "We are losing a diversity of institutions in the move to a digital terrain, and it is worth investigating what impact that loss has."
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Post 9 - Imperfection Necessities
In Information by Joseph Stiglitz, many important points are raised. One interesting notion is the idea of perfect versus imperfect information. "efficiency, full employment of resources, and uniform prices" are all things he lists under assumptions made about the concept of perfect information. Interestingly, he also makes several points about how certain things would simply not run without the information, such as arbitrage and equity. Without differences in price, profits could not be made, and without imaginary money within credit, a good deal of our transactions would simply not BE today.
Much of the world, I feel, operates on the basis of imperfect principles encapsulated within an idea of perfect principles. Copyright laws are made and are accepted based on the the idealized concept of intellectual property, like many laws. However, there are arguably many flaws in the definitions, and there is no perfection in making a definition that consolidates every individual's preconceived notions.
"Information is an activity.
Information is a life form.
Information is a relationship" (Barlow).
Information is defined based on how we attribute meaning to data, and that perception of attribution differs from person to person. General concepts have to be made on an abstract perfection to achieve communication, much like the functional economy discussed by Stiglitz, but everything about those concepts and how they operate is based in imperfection, fluctuation, and differences.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Post 8 - Selling the Image
Having started out this course with defining information, it is interesting to read, in a selection from Carl Shapiro's Information Rules, a book about technology and business, that "anything that can be digitized-encoded as a stream of bits-is information."Already established was their idea that "Information is costly to produce but cheap to reproduce." What was not discussed within the context of this information was how to sell it. For example, the book suggests selling information in different formats. For example, different editions of DVDs, or services with or without ads.
Another concept re-visited, though briefly, is the problem of copying. "Digital information can be perfectly copied and instantaneously transmitted around the world, leading many content producers to view the Internet as one giant, out-of-control copying machine." Part of the problem is that
"information is an experience good every time it's consumed." The text defines "a good [as] an experience good if consumers must experience it to value it." In other words, to know what you're getting is valuable, you have to know what it is; feel it, read the synopsis, play with a demo. The internet is full of free samples that are almost products in themselves in our endless ability to browse through their experience.
"Browsing is only part of the story. Most media producers overcome the experience good problem through branding and reputation. The main reason that we read the Wall Street Journal today is that we've found it useful in the past." This is also true for many technological companies, such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and many others that have established a powerful reputation and brand.
"Image is everything in the information biz, because it's the image that carries the brand name and the reputation." The book goes on to emphasize that a hoard of internet traffic is directed at pictures, and therefore images are invaluable. I wonder, then, why going into artistic fields is still not considered an important job, or lucrative for that matter. It might also be helpful to question why people insist on free visual media, along with music and other information. Perhaps an artist's work is no longer considered valuable investment because people think that all you need for great image and design is a computer and the know-how for the right programs, but that is not necessarily true. Personally, I work for a T-shirt graphics company on campus, and they will still have me draw things out for designs before moving them into the computer at times for a special look.
Perhaps the devaluation has more to do with our information overload. as Herbert Simon was quoted, "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention". Now, companies like Google thrive because"The real value produced by an information provider comes in locating, filtering, and communicating what is useful to the consumer." No one wants to spend so much time sifting to find what they need. Even ads are streamlined to be what we want to see. We no longer have the attention for broadcast information, as we are quickly responding to the current market catering like a spoiled child to babying parents. As the author writes, "the product that is expected to become the standard will become the standard."
Another concept re-visited, though briefly, is the problem of copying. "Digital information can be perfectly copied and instantaneously transmitted around the world, leading many content producers to view the Internet as one giant, out-of-control copying machine." Part of the problem is that
"information is an experience good every time it's consumed." The text defines "a good [as] an experience good if consumers must experience it to value it." In other words, to know what you're getting is valuable, you have to know what it is; feel it, read the synopsis, play with a demo. The internet is full of free samples that are almost products in themselves in our endless ability to browse through their experience.
"Image is everything in the information biz, because it's the image that carries the brand name and the reputation." The book goes on to emphasize that a hoard of internet traffic is directed at pictures, and therefore images are invaluable. I wonder, then, why going into artistic fields is still not considered an important job, or lucrative for that matter. It might also be helpful to question why people insist on free visual media, along with music and other information. Perhaps an artist's work is no longer considered valuable investment because people think that all you need for great image and design is a computer and the know-how for the right programs, but that is not necessarily true. Personally, I work for a T-shirt graphics company on campus, and they will still have me draw things out for designs before moving them into the computer at times for a special look.
Perhaps the devaluation has more to do with our information overload. as Herbert Simon was quoted, "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention". Now, companies like Google thrive because"The real value produced by an information provider comes in locating, filtering, and communicating what is useful to the consumer." No one wants to spend so much time sifting to find what they need. Even ads are streamlined to be what we want to see. We no longer have the attention for broadcast information, as we are quickly responding to the current market catering like a spoiled child to babying parents. As the author writes, "the product that is expected to become the standard will become the standard."
Monday, October 8, 2012
Post 7 - Generational Dystopia
Though I have not done as much of the reading as I would like, partly due to confusion about what is supposed to be read for class, there are some seemingly important issues brought up both in class and in the readings.
"The full implications for privacy in the age of Facebook and social media are still unknown, especially since the landscape is evolving at a rapid pace. Understanding this distinction in meanings of privacy among different groups, however, is a crucial first step." - Kate Raynes-Goldie: Understanding Privacy in the Age of Facebook
In response to critiques on exhibitionism, I'd have to go back to earlier debates and say that it depends on the use.
Putting a ton of information out in public about oneself can be damaging, yes, many studies, experiences, and practical reasoning can lead to that conclusion. However, how that information is used, and what it's value to the individual is, matters most in determining problems with exhibitionism.
The article by Kate Raynes-Goldie talked some about how privacy is circumvented for various reasons, and how the choice to be part of the exhibition facilitator Facebook is heavily influenced by peer pressure, and so is less of a choice, and more of a demand. Privacy circumvention, at times can be good. Say you want to show someone what your friend looks like to see if you have a common acquaintance, and send them a URL off of someone's private Facebook page. You could also use that circumvention ability to induce mutual hatred in an ex, rival, or someone you'd like to bully. It depends on how we use it.
Another article, titled A Web of Exhibitionists, said "What goes on the Internet often stays on the Internet. Something that seems harmless, silly or merely impetuous today may seem offensive, stupid or reckless in two weeks, two years or two decades. Still, we are clearly at a special moment."
While it is true that we are always searching for the "next best thing", and that is sometimes also the "easiest, most convenient thing" doesn't mean an end to innovation and creativity. Moreover, if we facilitate ease in technology in a way that allows us to concentrate our efforts on things not tedious, and more interesting, these aspects are actually an improvement on society.
The Roson reading insists that our culture is modifying technology to be easier to use without education, and that technology facilitates a sort of desensitization to our strong desires.
Interestingly, Roson uses children's ability to learn these technologies quickly as a bad thing, but it is simply different. We are currently in the middle of the most quickly advancing technical revolution that we know of, and yet many people jump to the conclusion that the difference from generation to generation forebodes a dystopian future. One argument against this idea is that we simply do not know yet what the tech savvy children and young adults today are going to look like when they're older. There is nothing to really point out what problems or benefits lie ahead, because there has never been such an era in history.
The last sentence in the article by Robert J. Samuelson was, "Thoreau famously remarked that 'the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.' Thanks to technology, that's no longer necessary. People can now lead lives of noisy and ostentatious desperation. Or at least they can try." Though privacy seems less of a concern, perhaps it is because the ease of access and freedom of expression via exhibitionism (such as that on Facebook and blogs etc) deters people from really paying attention to those who are "noisy and ostentatious" on the internet. In fact, it surprises me when I'm told by an acquaintance in person about their opinion of one of my posts, let alone gone through my timeline on Facebook or read through my profile. It was quite amusing when my relative blatantly asked, "So you're a Buddhist now?" I immediately replied, "No" with a chuckle, because I had labeled myself as a Theist, and then put underneath a list of general beliefs such as agency of choice, etc. as a hopeful indication of my religious fence sitting. She then said, "Oh. Well I suppose I'll have to look through your Facebook more thoroughly." Again, this made me laugh, because reading through the profile, my statements about myself and others, did not mean a better understanding of my own beliefs, and often times that is where the internet falls short; in human assumption.
On the other hand, as my roommate pointed out, there are detriments to technology, as Roson and others are wary, if not blatantly obstinate about. Simply watching Digital Nation will give you some idea, such as our inability to focus on one thing, quick addiction to gaming as a replacement for face to face interaction, or how advertising works. Another idea, pointed out by my roommate who is a CNA at a local assisted living home, was in the form of a question: "How much stimulation will your generation need in old age? You guys are always listening to music and or on some sort of device, like a phone or computer. What will happen when that isn't so easily at your finger tips?" We take this rapid change so lightly sometimes, or even criticize it as a horrible detriment, without thinking outside of even our access to such technologies.
It is much too easy, as the article Nanolaw with Daughter pointed out, to use information against people these days, and it is sad to see such things permeate every area of our lives. Though I have never personally looked into lawsuits, hoping to avoid them but feeling increasingly fatalistic in terms of probability, it seems like the use of information is more a misuse and abuse of copyright and stifling of creative opportunities. The simple notion that a ten year old could be sued in 57 different ways, per day, is staggering, and makes one wonder, have I been sued and don't know it, and what does that say about me and my actions? How can someone owe something without doing anything?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Blog Post 6 - persuasion over reason
"The consequence of this massive threat of liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off from last generation's dominant industries. That Lesson has been taught through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a lesson." page 189.
"We pride ourselves on our 'free society,' but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law." pg 201
As I am assuming Lessig is a lawyer (has been mentioned before in class), many of his claims, such as the one above, are asserted with the use of court cases as support. While I find this material to be incredibly dry, it makes a good argument, especially for someone who knows anything about the history around modern technologies.
In reference to the above (and possibly other) quotes was a case vaguely mentioned by my brother about the RIAA; suing an individual who stole 35 songs for thousands of dollars is not meant to protect the original creator of the work, as Lessig would argue. The case was made against that individual to make an example and restrict rights of those without power. In many, including my own view, I will argue, 35 songs is very little for the average citizen (especially in the younger internet savvy demographic), and thus suits like this both are enraging and frightening. If such a high price had to be paid for 35, how much more could any one of us suffer if targeted?
"The first question should be whether this particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper ends that copyright law serves." pg 202
"The point is the definition of 'illegal.' The law is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new technologies." pg 192
In fact, the last section we were required to read for class, Lessig goes over the frustration of trying to make congress repeal initial laws(?) currently in perpetual motion by Congress. Copyright is, in summary, something available in abundance to the wealthy, but barely under protection by the individual with little money and/or (arguably the same thing) power. "Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going" pg 216. This refusal to allow re-use of images with such intense regulation and punishment clearly stifles innovation, if not LEGAL innovation. As Lessig points out in a summarized, and repeated, phrase, "The inefficiency of the law is an embarrassment to our tradition" pg 192, and "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity" pg 192.
The case that Lessig and his other colleagues lost in the last portion of our reading was somewhat disappointing and I assume it was much more so to Lessig. His immediate response to try to find where reasoning did not factor in value systems, as he had mentioned, did not do anything to convince the judges of what they thought was right. For when persuading someone, appeals to the audience must speak directly to what THEY want to hear. It is unfortunately more rare that someone will listen to what is right, just, logical, well supported, or ethical over what they want to hear.
Disney and other copyright extending companies tend to steal from the public domain.
Owners vs. producers, "the power of money" pg 231
"We pride ourselves on our 'free society,' but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law." pg 201
As I am assuming Lessig is a lawyer (has been mentioned before in class), many of his claims, such as the one above, are asserted with the use of court cases as support. While I find this material to be incredibly dry, it makes a good argument, especially for someone who knows anything about the history around modern technologies.
In reference to the above (and possibly other) quotes was a case vaguely mentioned by my brother about the RIAA; suing an individual who stole 35 songs for thousands of dollars is not meant to protect the original creator of the work, as Lessig would argue. The case was made against that individual to make an example and restrict rights of those without power. In many, including my own view, I will argue, 35 songs is very little for the average citizen (especially in the younger internet savvy demographic), and thus suits like this both are enraging and frightening. If such a high price had to be paid for 35, how much more could any one of us suffer if targeted?
"The first question should be whether this particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper ends that copyright law serves." pg 202
"The point is the definition of 'illegal.' The law is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new technologies." pg 192
In fact, the last section we were required to read for class, Lessig goes over the frustration of trying to make congress repeal initial laws(?) currently in perpetual motion by Congress. Copyright is, in summary, something available in abundance to the wealthy, but barely under protection by the individual with little money and/or (arguably the same thing) power. "Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going" pg 216. This refusal to allow re-use of images with such intense regulation and punishment clearly stifles innovation, if not LEGAL innovation. As Lessig points out in a summarized, and repeated, phrase, "The inefficiency of the law is an embarrassment to our tradition" pg 192, and "If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity" pg 192.
The case that Lessig and his other colleagues lost in the last portion of our reading was somewhat disappointing and I assume it was much more so to Lessig. His immediate response to try to find where reasoning did not factor in value systems, as he had mentioned, did not do anything to convince the judges of what they thought was right. For when persuading someone, appeals to the audience must speak directly to what THEY want to hear. It is unfortunately more rare that someone will listen to what is right, just, logical, well supported, or ethical over what they want to hear.
Disney and other copyright extending companies tend to steal from the public domain.
Owners vs. producers, "the power of money" pg 231
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)