Saturday, February 28, 2015
Research Question
Do unpaid internships exploit college students? Thus, are internships a mechanism for mobility and/or inequality?
Friday, February 27, 2015
Research Question for future info-graph and website - Emma Reigel (3/3 due)
What effects will drilling in the Arctic have on the animal life
and the ecosystem?
(I will take side of environmentalists, while observing and showing the pro-drilling ideals and reasons)
Link to Infographic
https://magic.piktochart.com/editor/piktochart/4752483
Ignore the Valentine's Day theme (lol)
Ignore the Valentine's Day theme (lol)
Research Question
Is a four-year education at an elite, private university worth the student loans that come along with it?
Deliberative Democracy-- Is It Really Democracy?
In the PC Handbook, Chapters 17 and 18, the concept of deliberative democracy is introduced as a subset of participatory democracy. In short, its goal is to have debates related to political decisions in order to sway certain citizens toward a common goal. Although the "people" are involved in this (they participate in and observe the debates), this form of democracy seems problematic. The way I see it, a group of political elites will try to persuade the public to side with their opinion-- so that the opinion of the "people" ends up being a reflection of the opinion of the elites. Do you agree or disagree? Are they any other problems you can see arising with the onset of deliberative democracy?
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Participatory Cultures Timeline
Here is the link for my timeline. Enjoy!
http://www.dipity.com/lena2015/Participatory-Cultures-Timeline_1/
http://www.dipity.com/lena2015/Participatory-Cultures-Timeline_1/
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Copyright Timeline
My timeline maker was not working for some reason.
2011
Major media conglomerates list expands to include CBS and General Electric, owners of NBC.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 92)
2009
The Swedish “Pirate Party” acquires two seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections. The party stands for reformation of copyright law and the decriminalization of non-commercial file sharing, reduction of copyright terms and banning of Digital Rights Management (DRM), the dismantling of the patent system and the ongoing protection of personal privacy in the information age. Many other country-specific Pirate Parties were established in the wake of this electoral victory.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 93)
In the same year, the Supreme Court writes that "the tension between a speaker's desire for anonymity and the right of the plaintiff to protect his reputation or property arises in a variety of contexts, including defamation, copyright infringement, harassment, and malicious gossip. When faced with the clash of such valued interests, [The Supreme Court] must strike a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously-named defendant" (Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 2009, p. 251).
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 267)
2007
Viacom initiated a lawsuit against Google-owned Youtube, claiming that the video-sharing website enabled widespread copyright infringement of their content. Three years later, the case was defeated and it was ruled that Youtube fell within the ‘safe harbour’ provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). This meant that as long as Youtube complied with takedown notices from copyright owners, they could not be held accountable for the content hosted on the site, as there is no way they could know if content is uploaded legitimately or not.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 93-94)
2004
More than 66% of Americans have access to the Internet.
(Lessig, “Free Culture,” 7)
2003
Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, the number of major media conglomerates had been reduced from fifty to five and between them, these five conglomerates owned the majority of newspapers, magazines, book publishers, radio and TV stations, and movies of the United States. These conglomerates consisted of Time Warner, Bertelsmann, News Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, and Viacom.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 92)
2000
49% of Americans have access to the Internet.
(Lessig, “Free Culture,” 7)
1997
Reno versus ACLU
The Supreme Court declared the Internet as a “new marketplace of ideas” when it struck down a federal law that regulated sexually explicit on the internet, which is just emerging. The Court acknowledged the unique communicative aspects of this medium, stating that "[The Internet] constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers" (Reno, p.853).
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 266)
1996
Federal law which states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another content provider" (47 U.S.C., p. 230). This means that interactive computer services are exempt from civil liability for content posted by other information providers. Congress created this so-called Good Samaritan provision to protect ISPs and other interactive computer services in order to "preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation" (47 U.S.C., p. 230).
(Dewiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 270)
1995
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissions.
The Supreme Court adjudicates on the right to engage in anonymous political leafleting and states that "an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment" (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissions, 1995).
(Dewiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 267)
1983
Fifty major media conglomerates in the United States collectively control the bulk of significant media outlets across the world. These major media conglomerates have complete control over the factories, the machinery and tools of production, the means of distribution, and promotion, all of which were extremely expensive and inaccessible to the majority of individual artists.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 92)
Late 1960s
Intellectual property, which is a catch-all label for copyrights, trademarks, and patents, becomes a popularized term in the United States. The meanings for copyrights, trademarks, and patents becomes confusing since each term is completely different from the others. The beneficiaries of this widespread confusion are the multinational media conglomerates who wish to promote the agenda that cultural works are property, which they own outright.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 89)
1945
North Carolina farmers, Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby file a lawsuit against the government for trespassing onto their lands with low-flying military which ultimately led to the death of their chickens. This event brought up questions like “How much space below and/or above does one own if he or she owns that piece of land?” “Can I forbid the government from trespassing into this unknown yet limited property?” The case was thrown out by the simple notion that “common sense revolts at the idea.” This is one of the first examples of the law adjusting itself to newer and more innovative technologies.
(Lessig, “Free Culture,” 2-3)
1937
Disney releases Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This is a pivotal moment in the history of development of animation that would not have occurred if the Brothers Grimm received extensions to their copyright terms for Snow white and the rest of their original stories, which Disney borrowed a number of their concepts from.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 91)
1933
Edward Howard Armstrong is issued four patents for his revolutionary invention, the FM radio. Armstrong was working for RCA, a dominant player in the AM radio market at the time, when he created the FM radio. The FM radio was vastly superior to its predecessor which meant FM radio was a threat to the AM radio business. For this reason, RCA prolonged the FM radio’s public emergence. RCA’s president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong’s, was eager that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. Instead of creating some type of filter to block out the static of the AM radio, Armstrong created an entirely new innovative revolutionary technology. Eventually, RCA declared Armstrong’s patents invalid 15 years after they were issued. RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew impatient, RCA began to use its power with the government to stall FM radio’s deployment generally. RCA hired the former head of the FCC and assigned him the task of assuring that the FCC assign spectrum in a way that would castrate FM—principally by moving FM radio to a different band of spectrum. Being a huge corporation with many connections and much power, RCA was able to hold Armstrong off for 21 years through a series of political and corporate tactics. Finally as the patents were to expire, RCA offered Armstrong a settlement so low that it would not cover his lawyer fees. Defeated, broke, and financially destroyed, Armstrong eventually commits suicide.
(Lessig, “Free Culture,” 3-6)
1928
Mickey Mouse is born!
Walt Disney creates Steamboat Willie, the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound. Disney borrowed this synchronization technique from another film released the previous year, The Jazz Singer, and this effect was able to bring the cartoons to life. Steamboat Willie was a parody of Buster Keaton’s independent classic silent film, Steamboat Bill, Jr. Walt Disney borrowed several ideas from Steamboat Bill, Jr. and just like Steamboat Bill, Jr., Disney’s cartoon is based off the song Steamboat Bill. Disney had created something new from something that was relatively new. By 1928, most of the content is free of copyright laws and open for Disney or anyone else to use and build upon. This is an example of “Walt Disney Creativity” which is a form of expression and genius that builds upon the culture around us and makes it something different.
(Lessig, “Free Culture,” 21-24)
June 1906
Famous composer, John Phillip Sousa, takes a trip to the Library of Congress in order to testify about the status of copyright law in America and insure that the creators are paid for their respective creations.
Sousa described this form of piracy and asked that Congress “remedy a serious defect in the ... law, which permits manufacturers and sellers of phonograph records ... to appropriate for their own profit the best compositions of the American composer without paying a single cent therefor.”
Sousa fears a decline in participation and production and becomes an advocate for a “Read/Write” culture. This is a culture where the people will actively engage in understanding their culture as well as creating or recreating the culture around them.
Sousa fights the possibility of a “Read Only” culture emerging by stressing the importance of copyright laws and warning the dangers mechanical music.
(Lessig, "Remix," 23-29)
1791
The first amendment is adopted into the United States Constitutions. This amendment allows participatory cultures and virtual communities on the internet to develop and flourish in various online forms and forums.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 226)
1710
Copyright law is created in England because competing publishing companies in Ireland and Scotland were taking English authors’ manuscripts, reprinting them, and selling them at lower prices. These laws gave authors the sole right to make copies of their work for a period of fourteen years. Afterwards the right would be relinquished and the work would enter the Public Domain and anyone would be allowed to produce and sell copies of it. Copyright is a simple law designed to enable a publishing company to enforce a monopoly on the work for a limited period of time, which is an economic incentive for them to continue publishing books.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 90)
1532
Manus O’Donnell reiterates the same words that Colmcille stated in 1532 in defence of appropriation.
AD 561
According to Irish legend, St. Colmcille visited his old teacher, Finnian of Molville, and during this visit, Colmcille borrowed an important religious book from Finnian’s collection. Colmcille decided to produce a hand-rendered copy of this religious book. Once Finnian found out Colmcille created an unauthorized copy, Finnian demanded that the copy be handed over to him immediately. Colmcille denied Finnian’s request thus the case was brought to the High King of Ireland, Diarmaid. Diarmaid ruled that the copy rightfully belongs to Finnian under the Brehon Law which states ‘to every cow belongs its calf, to every book, its copy.’ Colmcille challenged the ruling and the dispute manifested itself into a battle known as the Battle of Cul Dreimne, or the Battle of the Books. Diarmaid’s army was massacred, leaving Colmcille the victor which meant he was able to keep the unauthorized copy that he created. This book is known as the ‘Cathach’ or the “Battler.” This is one of the earliest examples of copyright wars.
In defence of appropriation, Colmcille said, “I contend that the book of Finnian is none the worse for my copying it, and it is not right that the divine words in that book should perish, or that I nor any other should be hindered from writing them or reading them among the tribes. And further, I declare that it was right for me to copy it, seeing there was profit for me in copying this book in the form of wisdom gained, and seeing it was my desire to give the profit thereof to all peoples with no harm therefore to Finnian, or his book.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 86)
6th Century BC
Pythagoras would reorder and recombine letters of a word to form a new word which would bear some type of semiotic relation to the original. The concept of anagrams are one of the earliest examples of remixing.
(Delwiche & Henderson, “The Participatory Cultures Handbook,” 93)
Copyright Timeline
Here is the link to my timeline:
http://timeglider.com/t/aa96afd4c4f82a36
I have been having some issues with the website in terms of publishing, but I think I finally resolved them. Please let me know if the link does not work. I can provide you with the username and password for my account so you can view it from there.
http://timeglider.com/t/aa96afd4c4f82a36
I have been having some issues with the website in terms of publishing, but I think I finally resolved them. Please let me know if the link does not work. I can provide you with the username and password for my account so you can view it from there.
Socratic Dialogue - by Jaeyeop Lee
Professor Fuchs and Jenkins are having a conversation in the
café. Jenkins seems so excited about all the media cultures like Internet,
Google, Youtube, and Facebook. He tells that the world is now going to be full
of participation around the whole globe. And all people will enjoy the
participation to the global communication and enjoy their sharings of ideas.
However, at this moment, Fuchs raise an argument against the Jenkin’s idea
about the positive nature of Social media. Rather, he argues that the social
media is high exploitation of the consumers and make them to hard labours while
they are not noticing it. Furthermore, he argues that there are other people
who are painfully working in the actual hardships to get the minerals to run
the Internet.
Jenkins: Hey Fuchs, I found Facebook, Youtube, and Google
really interesting. People post many different pictures and share their lives
with other people. They post videos on Youtube and just say their ideas without
limit. Also, they just search on google to find the information they want. We
are living in the incredible world.
Fuchs: Well, Jenkins. As you know, the facebook is running
by Zuckerburg. He is the one who are getting majority of benefits by
advertising on Facebook. People do not know but while they are posting things
on Facebook, they are benefitting the advertisers. Moreover, while they are
posting pictures and sharing their profiles, the Facebook sells their profile
information, social contacts, and browsing behavior to the advertisers. Facebook
earns a lot of money by doing that. Moreover, people are just overly exploited
while they are under the surveillance of Facebook. Their personal data and
online activities are all exposed to Facebook. Even though they could socially
engaged, all the information is just visible to Facebook. People are not living
a wonderful life of sharing idea. They are just living a life of being
exploited under the surveillance of a dominant dictatorship.
Jenkins: Um, that’s not what I was arguing. Is that not
exploitation when people are enjoying it? They are sharing what they like, and
socially engaged in the actions. Therefore, I don’t think this is exploitation
because people are entertained by their activity in Social Media.
Fuchs: Well, you might argue that. However, even if they are
enjoying it and not feel it as exploitation, it is exploitation because they
are just literally giving profits to the companies like Facebook without
getting paid for their action. When they post their pictures, make their
profiles, and post walls, Facebook are selling that information to advertising
clients. Advertising clients then, with that information, make an advertisement
and put the link on the Facebook page so certain viewers can see and select the
advertisement. User may buy a product from the advertising company, and the
company gains profit from it. This is why I say that people are getting
exploited because they are not getting paid for giving their information to Facebook.
They are just keep posting things on Social Media. The more they do, the more
Facebook and advertising clients get benefit.
Jenkins: Well, I see that. However, I think this argument is
not still enough that Facebook and other social media like Google and Youtube
are exploiting people. People are still enjoying. I did not see any people not
benefitted by using social media.
Fuchs: Actually there are people who are physically
exploited to get the minerals to run the Internet. For example, there is a
company called Foxconn in China. They are unpaid overtime, exposed to
chemicals, and facing the harsh management. They are the slave-like labour used
to create iPhone. They are under surveillance of Foxconn. They are forced to
obey or leave the company. Once they are on the factory line, they are under
pressure. What a military like circumstance. Morever, they are forced to write
confession letters and to copy the letter of CEO as their punishments. They are
exploited under ‘continuous shifts’ They had to skip their second meal break
and go back to work. Also, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, laborers are
living under harsh conditions while extracting minerals to make iPhones,
because an armed groups are suppressing the local people and deprive the
control of mines. The deadly chemicals are also dumped in the local town. This is why the iPhones, iPads, and iMacs are
right to be called as “blood phones,” “blood pads,” and “blood Macs.”
While software engineer at Facebook are payed on average US$
111,428, and at Google on average of US$103,348, the workers in China or
Indonesia are payed only the minimum wage.
Jenkins: …
Fuchs: So, why don’t you change your argument, or bring up
with more stronger supports with your argument? I think these evidences are
enough to repute against and argument and insist that the Social Media are
doing the plantation all over the globe. I will see you later by some chance.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Copyright Timeline : Rip, Mix, and Burn
Below are links to both a list form as well as an interactive timeline of the history of Copyright
http://www.dipity.com/Kmarag/Rip-Mix-and-Burn-Copyright-Timeline/#list
http://www.dipity.com/Kmarag/Rip-Mix-and-Burn-Copyright-Timeline/#timeline
http://www.dipity.com/Kmarag/Rip-Mix-and-Burn-Copyright-Timeline/#list
http://www.dipity.com/Kmarag/Rip-Mix-and-Burn-Copyright-Timeline/#timeline
Monday, February 16, 2015
Socratic dialogue
Jenkins: The internet has done so much for connecting us to
one another. The participation that is now possible thanks to it will bring
about a much more consumer-controlled society!
Fuchs: Oh Jenkins, you are so naïve. Take a closer look at
the object of your unbridled optimism.
J: What is so terribly wrong about the internet? It allows
us to connect with people with similar interests. I love talking to people
about My Little Pony on the brony forums!
F: This is exactly what I am talking about, Henry! You talk
to other grown men about cartoon horses! If you were a child this would be
fine, but this is not participation as you would like to call it.
F: Your logic is flawed. You assume that fans will automatically move from fandom to political activism. If the most popular topics and groups on social media are any indicator, entertainment will always reign supreme. Politics will always be at best, secondary.
F: Well for one, you have to question what ownership of the
media means. We live in a capitalist system and thus, most social media is
owned by companies who want nothing more than to maximize their own profits. In
doing so, the companies exploit everyone involved. The raw materials for all of
your beloved gadgets come from Africa and they are assembled in Asia. Workers
in both places are for all intents and purposes, slaves and work in toxic
conditions. Once you have your device and are using social media sites, you are
under constant surveillance. Websites track what you like and things you say,
they sell all the data that you generate to advertising agencies who then
selectively target you. They advertise products that you might like. They
change what your perception of the world is without you even realizing it.
J: Well that’s a little too 1984 for my comfort, but isn’t the companies using our data in
their terms and conditions? Sure we’re being exploited, but a little bit isn’t
that bad right?
J: How so?
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Joshua Bloom- Timeline
I could not find an online timeline maker, but here is mine, in chronological order.
561
St. Colmcille, who was
regarded as one of Ireland’s most well known patron saints, visited his
teacher’s house to borrow a book. It was a religious book, and Colmcille
created a handwritten copy of it. However, his teacher was not so pleased about
this because he considered it theft of his book, even though he still had his
own copy. He was so upset about it that he brought the case over to Diarmaid,
the High King of Ireland. The King sided with Finnian (the teacher) under the
principle that no man could copy another man’s property. The exact words used
were “to every cow belongs its calf, to every book, its copy”. Colmcille was
adamant that he should be allowed to copy the book, and so a battle ensued. The
king’s army was defeated and Colmcille won, meaning that he was allowed to keep
his copy of the book that he had made.
1710
Copyright law first comes
into existence in England. This occurred when British publishing companies
found out that competing companies in Ireland and Scotland were copying their authors’
manuscripts, reprinting them, and then selling them for lower prices. The
British publishers thought this was unfair because they felt that the works
belonged to them, and because these works had value, they should be sold for
what they are worth. In other words, groups who have no right to print them
should not be able to sell them for a lower price. The public sentiment of the
British was on the side of their own publishers. They thought that certain
piracy laws needed to be enacted in order to protect their publishers and
books. The laws that were drafted gave authors the sole right to make copies of
their work for fourteen years after the first copy was published. After that
period, their right would be relinquished, the work would enter the Public
Domain, and anyone would be free to make and sell copies of it. This gave the
publishing companies an economic incentive to keep publishing books. If anyone
could make copies, there would be no reason for anyone to buy books made by the
publishing company as opposed to any vendor who was selling them. It is
important to note that the period that the authors had the sole right to copy
their own books was only fourteen years. In modern times, one generation is
typically considered to be thirty years, so it is interesting how little time
these authors had the rights to their books. Perhaps it was because lifetimes
and generations were shorter in those days, or maybe the British government did
not realize that fourteen years was a short time until those years were up.
1791
The First Amendment to the
United States Constitution is adopted. It permits freedom of speech and freedom
of the press. This allows participatory cultures and virtual communities on the
Internet to develop and flourish in the form of forums, blogs, social networks,
apps, and fan sites.
1906
John Philip Sousa, one of
America’s favorite musical composers, went to the Library of Congress in
Washington to testify about America’s copyright laws. At the time, the
copyright system in the United States was relatively relaxed. Sousa wanted
Congress to fix what he considered to be a serious defect in the copyright
laws. Under the current rules, manufactures and vendors of phonograph records
could create and sell copies of Sousa’s records for their own profit. They
earned all of the money from the sale of these copies without having to pay him
a single cent. To him, this was a form of piracy. The copyrights on his work
gave him an exclusive right to control the public performance of his work, any
copies of sheet music for his work, and any documents created from his work.
Some of his income came from these copyrights as well. Sousa’s concerns were
not unreasonable, however. During the turn of the 20th century, many
new technologies emerged for creating and distributing music, such as the piano
and the phonograph. The significance of these new inventions was that the
average person, as long as they could afford these mechanisms, could easily
replicate Sousa’s songs in their own homes. In prior times, only members of the
elite had this privilege. The copyright laws at the time did not provide
guidelines for how replication of music through modern technology should be
handled. Sousa was not only concerned about music being replicated for free- he
was concerned about the quality of the music that would be played in public. He
was used to people singing songs rather than playing them, and he worried that
with the new technology, this art would be lost. As people learned how to play
these new instruments, most people would want to listen to a select few play
them rather than attempt to play or create new music of their own. He worried
that because of this, musical creativity would be lost and everyone would gather
to hear certain people play his songs on these instruments. Also, he would not
earn any money from these playings.
1928
The Walt Disney Company uses
synchronized sound in their Mickey Mouse cartoons. Technically, they took the
technology from the movie The Jazz Singer. Mickey Mouse himself was based off
of another character called Steamboat Willie. Many of Disney’s movies, which
came out in various later decades, took concepts and ideas from each other as
well.
1933-1954
In December 1933, Edwin Howard
Armstrong was issued four patents for frequency-modulated (FM) radio. Prior to
this, most Americans listened to amplitude-modulated (AM) radio. Armstrong
discovered that, in a wide band of spectrum, FM radio could produce an
astonishing sound. In November 1935, he demonstrated the new technology at a
meeting of the Institute of Radio Engineers in New York’s Empire State
Building. The audience was able to hear a broadcast from Yonkers, which is 17
miles away from the city. They were astonished that they could hear such clear
sound from so far away. There was an issue with Armstrong inventing this
technology, however. At the time he invented it, he was working for RCA, which
was the nation’s leading provider of AM radio. David Sarnoff, the CEO of RCA,
was originally excited about FM radio because he thought that Armstrong had
just invented a way to remove static from AM radio. However, when he found out
that Armstrong’s new technology had the potential to compete with AM radio, he
was very displeased. If RCA started losing customers to FM radio, not only
would they lose revenue; they would lose the virtual monopoly they had over the
industry. In other words, RCA believed that they had the “right” to the
industry, and they were mad that someone “copied” or created a variation of AM
radio. They eventually got the government involved, and in 1936, the FCC began
to “castrate” FM radio. FM could no longer be broadcast from one part of the
nation to another. Armstrong, in defense of his technology, resisted RCA’s efforts.
In response, RCA resisted his patents. Although they incorporated FM technology
into television, they declared his patents for the technology to be invalid.
They refused to pay him royalties, and Armstrong fought in the courts in
defense of his patents for six years. In the early 1950s, his patents expired,
and RCA offered him a settlement so low that it did not even cover his lawyers’
fees. Defeated and broke, Armstrong jumped to his death in 1954.
1945
Two North Carolina farmers,
Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby, became angry when their chickens started dying
because they were afraid of the airplanes flying over their property. The
question that arose in the Supreme Court was this- did the farmers have a right
to the air space above their land? Could they restrict airplanes from flying
over their farm? The answer, to both questions, was no: the air is a public
space, and they only had the right to the land, not the space above it.
1995
In the Supreme Court case McIntyre
Vs. Ohio Elections Commission, which protected the right to engage in anonymous
political leafleting, the Court said “an author’s decision to remain anonymous,
like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a
publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment”. This means that the Court believes that authors of content have a
right to privacy in the sense that they can remain anonymous in their
publications.
1997
In the Supreme Court case
Reno vs. ACLU, the Court described the Internet as a “new marketplace of ideas”
in defense of striking down a federal law that regulated sexually explicit
content on the Internet, which was still emerging at the time. This may seem
surprising, considering that the material is deemed inappropriate by most, but
the Court believed that people had the freedom to spread their ideas on the
Internet, given that these ideas were not dangerous.
1999
SilviaO, a Colombian singer,
donated an a cappella track that she sung to a remixing website. Another user
remixed the song to the point where the words had no meaning, and the original
song was barely recognizable. The point of the website was to create new music
from material that already existed, and it was completely legal. It was a
reflection of the new way that music was being created during this time period.
2000-2007
Greg Gillis created the band
Girl Talk in 2000. Some of the band’s music included mash-ups from famous and
licensed artists such as Elton John, The Notorious BIG, and Destiny’s Child.
All of the music samples in his remixes were obtained without permission.
Technically, what Gillis is doing is considered a crime, but he has not been
prosecuted for his acts.
2007
In February, a woman named
Stephanie Lenz posted a video of her 18-month-old son on YouTube. During the
video, he was dancing to a Prince song, whose copyrights are owned by Universal
Music Group. In order to defend itself against copyright piracy, the company
wanted to threaten Lenz. It sent out a letter to YouTube ordering that the
video be taken down because it was an “unauthorized performance” of Prince’s
music. Although the quality of the video was terrible, and it was very unlikely
that anyone would actually download the music from that video. In other words,
there was no way that Prince or Universal would be harmed by an innocent woman
posting a video of her baby dancing on the Internet. When Lenz discovered that
her video had been taken down from YouTube, she wondered what she had done
wrong. She asked that question to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who
handles many cases like this. Were the time and the money for Universal to hold
a legal meeting in order to discuss this truly necessary? Although it seemed
harmless, Lenz could have been charged with a $150,000 fine if the video had
not been taken down. Because YouTube removed it, she was not charged, but she
could not view the video online anymore.
2007
An art museum in London had
an exhibit that displayed twenty-five people singing an entire John Lennon
album from 1970. The exhibit was on display for the entire summer. Similar
exhibits existed in Jamaica, Germany, and Italy. Their singing abilities were
average at best, but the emotion in their voices were very strong, as they
idolized the singer. Candice Breitz, who created the exhibit, set out to secure
permission from the copyright holders of the album to use it in her exhibit.
She was told that the image of Lennon could not be used in this project, but
she corrected the lawyers and stated that she only wanted to display ordinary
people singing his music. Breitz and the lawyers spent months negotiating over
this, but the arguing was not worth the time. As of the publication of Lessig’s
“Remix”, no final argument has been reached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)