Monday, February 15, 2010

Law Schools are trying to reform copyright laws

A young man from Boston University doctoral student was sued for downloading music from the internet and was fined $22,500 for each track x 30 tracks = $675,000.00; and this to me isn't fair to single out one person out of a generation of people his age across the entire world!  If the entertainment industry wants to protect the copyrights of artists'; then they need to have legislation passed in the World Court to go after the website companies instead (of the younger generation)!  The R.I.A.A or Recording Industry Association is who filed suit against this young man in 2007, and they seem to be targeting college students for suit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/global/02iht-riedmedia.html?amp=&pageswanted+print).  In 1999 the Copyright Act of 1976 was changed to make internet downloaders' that take songs or movies or any other intellectual property (especially songs to $150,000.00 per song); and how can the youth be able to afford this amount when they can buy an entire CD or DVD for under $20.00!  They are still obligated to pay their student loans when they graduate and on top of that, they have to pay these ridiculous amounts?

Another new idea has emerged, and educators like this new concept by allowing students to download their textboks from online stores because of the cost of the books from the universities; which can be around $1,000 to $1,200 a year (http://cnnmoney.printhis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Cut+school+costs%3A+Download+your+textbooks+-+Dec...).  Professors also like that they can put lectures on "IPhones" and can also modify the textbooks in the pdf format to their likening(CNN-Money).  Textbooks on average costs are increasing from 6% to 8% annually (CNN-Money).  Now students can go to "Flat World Knowledge" and "Course Smart" to purchase some textbooks in digital format (CNN-Money).  Some 2000 faculty members from over 500 universities signed a petition to have more affordable textbooks online and its time, because it is the 21st century!

Creative Commons has revolutionized the web not only in music but education, too.  Creative Commons is also helping to expand sharing in the Middle East (Jordan in Nov, 2009), with Al Jazeera Network for blogs and other distribution media sharing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wojcicki/creative-commons-in2009_b_366548.html).  Stores are also using Creative commons license to promote their goods and services like "Nike and Best Buy"(huffingtonpost).  Creative Commons is taking off and there is no stopping it; and maybe that would be a solution for the music and movie industries to go with Creative Commons under their protected copyright license, instead of spending millions of dollars targeting college-age people!
Posted by at 4 comments:

Josh Woodward Part II of Assignment #3

This is a picture of the early pioneer of "Creative Commons"; and was taken in 2007 (www.wikipedia.org/joshwoodward)




Josh Woodward is from Findlay, Ohio and was tired of all the comotion of Napster; because of the downloading of artists' songs for free and the lawsuits that followed.  He is a singer and a songwriter and decided to fight back and placed a 150 of his original songs on his website for people to download for free and to encourage them to buy CD's through "Snickers Records"(http://www.joshwoodward.com/).  As a result of this briliant idea to allow people to download his music for free, it has led to "Creative Commons" to have millions of downloads a day.  The internet for freelancers or creative people using "Creative Commons" gives them the ability to showcase their talent or lack of to a niche audience.  As for Josh Woodward, he has had over a million downloads of his music and noteriety, too.
Posted by at No comments:

What is Creative Commons and what or whom does it help or hurt?

Creative Commons is a website that allows people (amateurs) to place their talent online under a license (one-for-all), for people to download the artists' works for free.  Some artists' can also have their works published under "Creative Commons" with some copyright protection.

A man name Allan Vilhan did just that; he joined "Megatune.com (an internet music distributor) that places an "all rights reserved" copyright language, with additional protection licenses reserved under "Creative Commons"(http://money.cnn.com/magazine/business2_archive/2004/05/01/368240/index.htm).
Allan Vilhan was able to make a small profit from a programmer that downloaded 2 versions of his two tracks, and was paid $450.00 to license them for music on a videogame (CNN-Money).  In addition, a design firm used Vilham's songs for a Flash presentation and paid him $370.00 (CNN-Money).  According to CNN, 'Megatune founder John Buckman has grossed in just two years-from 2003-2005, $180,000 for 126 musicians.  Plus, the free downloads gives these artists' exposure that they would not otherwise have and which may lead to commercial demand; where the real money is (CNN-Money).

This is just on example of how an artist can utilize "Creative Common" with a license or limited copyright protection.  But, there are artists' out there like "Pink Floyd", "ACDC", 'Jimi Hendrix", and movies blockbusters the "Titantic", that are under the Copyright Act of 1976 and are protected from internet free-downloading (CNN-Money).  I believe that these artists' should not have their creative works stolen from them whether or not it's a societal new phenomenum or not.  If artists choose to place their works under "Creative Commons" or any other free access site; then that's their business!  But, I feel personally that piratcy isn't a moral right, and therefore anyone who steals creativity from someone else should pay legally!
Posted by at 4 comments:

Monday, February 1, 2010

Censorship around The World Blog Assignment # 2, Google and Netizens

What is Democracy on the World Wide Web?  From the research I conducted on this very subject; I found that even the United States has a double-standard when it comes to censorship. For instance, Sec. of  State Hillary Rodham Clinton stated publicly that she was proud of Google's decision to stand up against the Chinese goverment against censorship; but, she didn't mention how the United States conducts censorship, too.  Her comments according to other politicians and security software scientists, was no more than a "cheerleading for Google" and in order for the internet to allow free speech there must be a worldwide discussion among members of countries to put laws in place to allow freedom of speech(www.technewsworld.com/story/69171.html).  The problem started with Google and the Chinese government when the Chinese try to hack twenty companies affiliated with Google, because they were trying to access email accounts of political dissenters in December, 2009 (www.cnn/2010/TECH/01/12google.china/index.html).  The Senior Vice president of Google's operations in China, David Drummond stated that the Chinese government for the past year has been conducting surveilance of the coming and goings of Google's employees; and this most recent cyber attack in December has made the company considered leaving China all together(www.cnn/TECH/01/12google.china/index.html). 
Google originally agreed in 2006 to censor the company according to Chinese law and to set-up a server according to local laws, in order to operate their business in China (www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/0125/google/china/html).  So, it took only three years for Google to get sick and tired of the censorship from China? No, this past week after a heated debate between Google and the Chinese government, the two entities came up with an amicable agreement, and for now it looks like Google will still operate in China.

 Background of Netizens in China and elsewhere:

Netizens are people who join internet forum sites, that the people all share a common philosophy and discuss their thoughts with one another.  The netizens have helped politicians' raise money for their campaigns and also have made remarks about a candidate they do not endorse.  In the 1990's, the American Heart Ass. reached out to people that had either suffered from a congenital heart problem or someone they loved and; as a result the netizens petitoned their state governors to make Feb. 14th Congenital Heart Disease Day (NIH).  It took the netizens about one to two years to have this day recognized officially into law (NIH).

China Netizens:
Even though China bans Twitter, and other social-media sites, the Chinese people have still found ways around the censorship by using micro-blog sites to communicate with each other, and to show the autrocities committed by their government with the use of cellphones and video camcorders, to get the footage out to the rest of the world to see.  In China 92% of the people are netizens and by 2015 the numbers will rise from 300 million to 500 million netizens, and currently there are only 76% of the U.S. population that are netizens (www.readwriteweb.com/archives/despite_banning_twitter_92_china_uses_social_m...). The Chinese government uses a software component to stop people from discussing openly the political rhetoric, and it is called "GreenDam Software Censoring, and all computers sold in China must have this censoring software built inside each and every computer" (www.readwriteweb.com/archives/despite_banning_twitter_92_uses_social_m...).  The GreenDam Software is able to pick out a list of words or phrases and ban them immediately from netizens in China to ever being able to reach their intended audience.  Even when China has military conflicts with a soverign country, Taiwan; the Chinese government bans any internet information from getting out, so they think!  When there was a social uprising between the "Flaun Dafu Muslim group that wanted religous freedom, subject of democracy, China tried to block the the comments on the web" (www.readwriteweb.com/archives/despite_banning_twitter_92_uses_social_m...).  The Chinese government blocked or banned Twitter and Facebook when the Uighur Muslims were protesting in the thousands; and a bloody violent confrontation erupted that left 140 of the muslim protestors' dead; but the netizens of China were still able to capture the bloody images with their cellphones and used micor-blogging sites that allow the world to see the horrible events that the Chinese government committed.  "China's constitution supposeably guarantees freedom of speech, and the government employs a "subversion of state power clause" which is employed to punish those who are critical of the government (www.readwriteweb.com/archives/despite_banning_twitter_92_uses_social_m...).  The clause was most recently used against the Uigher Muslims and banned social-networking sites: Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, and Bing. Images below Picture 1 shows Google taking their sign down, Picture 2 shows where the internet is blocked.

The United States has been committing censorship to countries that have U.N. sanctions put in place: Syria, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea from purchasing goods that have more than ten percent of components made in the U.S.A., other than food or medical supplies (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/01/26/syria-netizens-discuss-sourceforge-ban/print/).  In Syria for the past year has been having a hard time logging into a server from the United States called SourceForge; and this is used for internet users to conduct educational research and to download other materials.  In January of this year the United States has completely stopped all access to the online server to these banned countries from using SorceForge.net- These are the errors they see when trying to access SourceForge:

 link (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/01/26/syria-netizens-discuss-sourceforge-ban/print/).  So, this is hyprocritical to what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's stance on Google's decision to stand their ground against the Chinese government of censorship, when the United States is doing the same thing!  Some people would argue, that the United States has different reasons for censorship to these countries like Syria, because they are enemies' to our national security; so isn't China?
The web traffic on the World Wide Web has been growing at a phenominal rate, that even the filters that governments put in place will not stop the people of the world from beating the censorship; because some people out there are extremely ingenious and can always hack around these filters to let the news out one way or another (http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/can-google-beat-china/?pagemode=pr...).  For instance, when I watched the video on Myanmar, the journalists' video camcorders were confiscated by the military, but they were still able to capture images of the brutality being committed against the citizens of Myanmar with the journalist's cellphones (http:abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3666307) Even Iran, the freedom protestors have been able to show the death of many protestors with the use of cellphones, even though Iran tries to block the internet.  This will never stop netizens from distributing the images with the "Long Tail' of the internet because it is to vast and infinite for governments to stop.

Works Cited:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)