YergeyonRetort

Retropolis: Second-Order Culture -Final Group Project

2011-12-15T19:42:00.000-08:00

Discussion Questions.

Retropolis and Second-Order Culture

1.) As far as the evolution of electronic content is concerned… is modern day user generated content helping or hindering the future?

2.)Does the user truly have the control to express themselves online, or are they just using some else’s creation? So does the expression lie with the user or with the creator of the program.

3.) With all the advances in the internet, What all (can/or/will) be changed to make the Internet a first order creation.

4.) Where do we see the future of the internet going? Are we doomed to more and more social networking site or through time will it begin to truly flourish and show its true potential.

Screencast

2011-12-07T11:20:00.000-08:00

Ironically my screencast about copyright law was blocked from YouTube because of copyright. So, here is my screencast as an .mov!

Revised 2nd Web Writing Assignment

2011-10-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

Copyright and Patent Laws are derived from the protection granted by the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. This clause states one of the duties of the Constitution is, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (copyright.gov). These protections were meant to benefit society and functioned within the technology of that time. However, the explosion of the Internet has birthed a new generation of digital culture. This digital culture functions under advanced technologies that have created a new language for people to communicate, create, and share through in ways that have never been possible. The new technology has sparked creativity, allowing people to create new works, mash-ups, and remixes. The technology has enabled everyday people, not only the authors and inventors, to create original material. This has positively fostered more creativity in society, but is simultaneously being stifled by antiquated copyright laws. Copyright laws have not evolved with the evolution of technology, and now are too restricting for the new realm of creativity. When copyright laws were created, the idea of the Internet and huge public sharing platforms were a mere fantasy. Instead of enhancing the public domain with new creative material, copyright law is restricting the free exchange of ideas and material. Lawrence Lessig argues in his book Remix that copyright laws are senseless in criminalizing the amateur uses of media and are restraining creativity in society. He outlines five reforms that would enable a more efficient and effective copyright law. Social media sites, like youtube-mp3.org, are platforms for creative expression and sharing that should be allowed for the public domain, to encourage a creative, thriving society, and would be greatly benefited by a reformed copyright law.

The Internet was originally created to function as a platform for a network of interrelated computer systems to exchange information. The Internet’s explosive growth has prompted many more uses including entertainment, media, business, and communication. Music has been a particularly popular facet to evolve with the Internet in terms of file sharing. The first revolutionary social media sharing site was Napster, which was a peer-to-peer file sharing application launched in 1999. This sparked similar file sharing sites like LimeWire and BitTorrent. The Supreme Court case of A & M Records v. Napster in 2001, however, found Napster illegal on two different counts of copyright infringement. Firstly, the Napster users who uploaded the file sharing content were violating the copyright holders distribution rights. Secondly, the Napster users who downloaded the file sharing content were violating the copyright holders reproduction rights. (riaa.com) The Napster ruling didn’t terminate file sharing over the web all together, however. It actually spurred the creation of new outlets and types of file sharing like youtube-mp3.org.

Youtube.com was founded in February of 2005 as a platform for people to discover, watch, and share originally created videos. YouTube states their copyright policy of being strictly in line with copyright law, however, it is blatantly clear that a majority of YouTube content is not 100% original and in violation of copyright law. Sites like youtube-mp3.org were created in response to YouTube to be able to convert their videos into mp3 files. Youtube-mp3.org is a simple, free service that allows users to take any YouTube URL and convert it to a downloadable mp3 file. Youtube-mp3.org is a proxy of YouTube, and is powered by German company PMD Technologie UG. Youtube-mp3.org circumvents copyright complaints by noting that if there is a complaint, they will try to remove the content as quickly as possible; but the best way get remove copyright infringing content is to contact YouTube directly. This website cannot convert anything except YouTube URL’s, and thus avoids legal infractions by deferring all responsibility to YouTube, because that is the source of the content. (youtube-mp3.org)

YouTube persists despite its display of copyrighted content due to fair use. YouTube states it is a platform for 100% original content; but content that may questionably be in violation is defended with fair use. Fair use states that some copyrighted work may be used without permission depending on the purpose of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, relative amount of the portion used, and the market effect of the use on the copyrighted work. If a video on YouTube is in violation of copyright infringement, the copyright authority must send a notice to YouTube and it will be taken down. (Atwood) Youtube has also created what is called “Content ID” to protect original content. By creating a Content ID, you have sourced and stored your original content to the Youtube database. Every time a new video is uploaded, it is run through the Youtube Conten ID database to ensure no material has been illegally copied.

http://youtu.be/9g2U12SsRns

Youtube-mp3.org defers users to follow this process in terms of copyright complaint about content. The question of how youtube-mp3.org deals with copyright infringement in terms of file sharing still remains, however.

There are many sites similar youtube-mp3 that function as converters for streamed online material like YouTube videos and Pandora radio. These website converters claim protection under Audio Home Recording Act and the Supreme Court’s Betamax ruling. A similar website called MP3Rocket states, “that since all it's really doing is "time shifting" the ability to listen to music streamed via YouTube, it's no different than the ruling that said it was okay to record television shows via video cassettes” (Masnick). “Time shifting” is the process of recording some media programming on a storage device to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time to the consumer. The concept of time shifting was originated in reference to television programming; however, with the advent of the Internet, new forms of media like YouTube videos and podcasts have arisen. The Betamax ruling found that a distributer couldn’t be held liable for users’ infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Time-sharing was found to be fair use in this Supreme Court case. Youtube-mp3.org functions under these regulations by converting streamed videos for later consumption. The real question of whether copyrighted material has been infringed on comes with the user and how they consume the content converted. So, the burden of the copyright infringement is once again deferred, this time to the consumer. The converting and downloading of music videos into mp3 files could definitely lead individual users into sticky legal battles. This is exactly what Lessig references as the senseless criminalization of amateurs.

The five steps Lessig outlines that should be taken to reform the outdated copyright law are deregulating amateur activity, clear title, simplify, decriminalizing the copy, and decriminalizing file sharing. Deregulating amateur activity and decriminalizing file sharing would have profoundly beneficial effects for the consumers of websites like youtube-mp3.org. The first reform would be beneficial to the website in terms of content problems. Remixes and mash-ups are perfect examples of how digital media has been able to flourish with the Internet and sites like YouTube. Being able to take media, interpret, and create your own new versions has allowed people distribute their own ideas and has enriched society and the public domain. The current copyright law, however, prohibits this and forces this kind of content to be taken down when put on the Internet, even though it is highly unlikely that this amateur content would harm the commercial gain of the actual version. If this reform were enacted, people could express their ideas more freely without the worry of a legal altercation. It would also probably cause a surge in the amount of creative material made for noncommercial use, which would only enrich the public domain.

The second reform, decriminalizing file sharing, would be particularly helpful to youtube-mp3.org. In this reform, Lessig suggests “authorizing at least noncommercial file sharing with taxes to cover a reasonable royalty to the artists whose work is shared, or by authorizing a simple blanket licensing procedure, whereby users could, for a low fee, buy the right to freely file-share” (Lessig, 271). This would be helpful to the consumers of the site and to the copyright owners of the content used. Despite file sharing being outlawed over a decade ago, people have continued to file share. Because it is so difficult to police and criminalize every individual that engages in file sharing, it would be more beneficial to artists and copyright owners take part in the process and receive the cut they deserve. This reform would also be beneficial to the consumer because they would no longer have to worry about breaking the law and the legal implications that might ensue. This would, in turn, be beneficial to the website because they would most likely receive more traffic.

The growth of technology has made policing copyright by the traditional standards unmanageable. Society is in dire need of a reform of antiquated copyright law. Social media websites have created so many new opportunities for a creative society to flourish, but are still shackled and antique laws about what can be created and shared on the world wide web. Trying to enforce copyright laws that were meant for mediums much prefaced to the technological mediums we have now has only stifled creativity in society and spurred criminalization of amateur use of copyrighted content. Digital media sharing websites, like youtube-mp3.org, are very restrained in their attempt to accommodate the outdated copyright law. Reforming the law would carry many benefits. It would cause a surge in creativity, enhancing the public domain and the free exchange of ideas. On a larger scale, it would improve the morality of the digital era generations by putting in place laws that can reasonably be followed.

My Screencast
http://youtu.be/-QQwo25KVOw

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-QQwo25KVOw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bibliography

Atwood, Jeff. "YouTube: The Big Copyright Lie." Coding Horror. 07 Oct. 2007. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/10/youtube-the-big-copyright-lie.html>.

"Copyright Law: Preface." U.S. Copyright Office. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html>.

"Impress - YouTube to Mp3 Converter." YouTube to Mp3 Converter. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.youtube-mp3.org/impress>.

Kershaw, Peter. "Origin Of Copyright." Heal Our Land Ministries. 2003. Web. 09 Oct. . <http://hushmoney.org/copyright.htm>.

Lessig, Lawrence. "Remix." Scribd. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/47089238/Remix>.

Masnick, Mike. "Is Downloading and Converting a YouTube Video to an Mp3 Infringement?" TechDirt. 08 Feb. 2011. Web. <http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=time+shifting>.

"The Law." RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law>.

http://youtu.be/-QQwo25KVOw

© ? ...

2011-10-10T18:17:00.000-07:00

Copyright and Patent Laws are derived from the protection granted by the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. This clause states one of the duties of the Constitution is, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (Kershaw). These protections were meant to benefit society and functioned within the technology of that time. However, the explosion of the Internet has birthed a new generation of digital culture. This digital culture functions under advanced technologies that have created a new language for people to communicate, create, and share through in ways that have never been possible. The new technology has sparked creativity, allowing people to create new works, mash-ups, and remixes. The technology has enabled everyday people, not only the authors and inventors, to create original material. This has positively fostered more creativity in society, but is simultaneously being stifled by antiquated copyright laws. Copyright laws have not evolved with the evolution of technology, and now are too restricting for the new realm of creativity. Instead of enhancing the public domain with new creative material, copyright law is restricting the free exchange of ideas and material. Lawrence Lessig argues in his novel Remix that copyright laws are senseless in criminalizing the amateur uses of media and are restraining creativity in society. He outlines five reforms that would enable a more efficient and effective copyright law. Social media sites, like youtube-mp3.org, are platforms for creative expression and sharing that should be allowed for the public domain, to encourage a creative, thriving society, and would be greatly benefited by a reformed copyright law.

The Internet was originally created to function as a platform for a network of interrelated computer systems to exchange information. The Internet’s explosive growth has prompted many more uses including entertainment, media, business, and communication. Music has been a particularly popular facet to evolve with the Internet in terms of file sharing. The first revolutionary social media sharing site was Napster, which was a peer-to-peer file sharing application launched in 1999. This sparked similar file sharing sites like Limewire and BitTorrent. The Supreme Court case of A & M Records v. Napster in 2001, however, found Napster illegal on two different counts of copyright infringement. Firstly, the Napster users who uploaded the file sharing content were violating the copyright holders distribution rights. Secondly, the Napster users who downloaded the file sharing content were violating the copyright holders reproduction rights. (riaa.com) The Napster ruling didn’t terminate file sharing over the web all together, however. It actually spurred the creation of new outlets and types of file sharing like youtube-mp3.org.

Youtube.com was founded in February of 2005 as a platform for people to discover, watch, and share originally-created videos. YouTube states their copyright policy of being strictly in line with copyright law, however, it is blatantly clear that a majority of YouTube content is not 100% original and in violation of copyright law. Sites like youtube-mp3.org were created in response to YouTube to be able to convert their videos into mp3 files. Youtube-mp3.org is a simple, free service that allows users to take any YouTube URL and convert it to a downloadable mp3 file. Youtube-mp3.org is a proxy of YouTube, and is powered by German company PMD Technologie UG. Youtube-mp3.org circumvents copyright complaints by noting that if there is a complaint, they will try to remove the content as quickly as possible; but the best way get remove copyright infringing content is to contact YouTube directly. This website cannot convert anything except YouTube URL’s, and thus avoids legal infractions by deferring all responsibility to YouTube, because that is the source of the content. (youtube-mp3.org)

YouTube persists despite its display of copyrighted content due to fair use. YouTube states it is a platform for 100% original content; but content that may questionably be in violation is defended with fair use. Fair use states that some copyrighted work may be used without permission depending on the purpose of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, relative amount of the portion used, and the market effect of the use on the copyrighted work. If a video on YouTube is in violation of copyright infringement, the copyright authority must send a notice to YouTube and it will be taken down. (Atwood) Youtube-mp3.org defers users to follow this process in terms of copyright complaint about content. The question of how youtube-mp3.org deals with copyright infringement in terms of file sharing still remains, however.

The growth of technology and the emergence of the new digital era has sparked a need for reform of antiquated copyright law. Social media websites are in tension with copyright laws in how to police what is created and shared on the world wide web. Trying to enforce copyright laws that were meant for mediums much prefaced to the technological mediums we have now has only stifled creativity in society and spurred criminalization of amateur use of copyrighted content. Digital media sharing websites, like youtube-mp3.org, are very restrained in their attempt to accommodate the outdated copyright law. Reforming the law would carry many benefits. It would cause a surge in creativity, enhancing the public domain and the free exchange of ideas. On a larger scale, it would improve the morality of the digital era generations by putting in place laws that can reasonably be followed.

Bibliography

Atwood, Jeff. "YouTube: The Big Copyright Lie." Coding Horror. 07 Oct. 2007. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/10/youtube-the-big-copyright-lie.html>.

"Impress - YouTube to Mp3 Converter." YouTube to Mp3 Converter. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.youtube-mp3.org/impress>.

Kershaw, Peter. "Origin Of Copyright." Heal Our Land Ministries. 2003. Web. 09 Oct. . <http://hushmoney.org/copyright.htm>.

Lessig, Lawrence. "Remix." Scribd. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/47089238/Remix>.

Masnick, Mike. "Is Downloading and Converting a YouTube Video to an Mp3 Infringement?" TechDirt. 08 Feb. 2011. Web. <http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=time+shifting>.

"The Law." RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America. Web. 09 Oct. 2011. <http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law>.

Revised Web Page

2011-09-22T10:22:00.000-07:00

Check out my new web page about my first experiences with AOL and the Internet Evolution!!

file:///C:/Users/yergeyon/Desktop/revisedwebsite/revisedwebpage.html

My Ugly Web Page

2011-09-20T09:55:00.000-07:00

This is my ugly Hello Kitty webpage that you should go visit!!

http://www.appstate.edu/~yergeyon/uglywebpage

First Web-Writing Assignment

2011-09-07T13:33:00.000-07:00

When trying to recall my earliest interactions with the Internet, it is difficult to pinpoint a single encounter. I think it is hard to recall because the Internet has become so ingrained in my lifestyle, that it is difficult to imagine functioning an entire day without it. Surprisingly, however, I was not online until the late 90’s. The most resonating memory I have of my first online encounters would be the exceedingly slow buildup of the dial-up connection to AOL. The loud, obnoxious dial up connection noise would finally give way to the boastful declaration from the familiar but faceless voice saying, “You’ve Got Mail!” Once signed into AOL, there seemed like there was a chat room for anything and everything. I remember trying to interact in the chat room dialogue, but feeling too awkward to talk to people I had never seen or met before.

While my personal anecdotes of my first interactions with the internet show how I characterized the new technology, there is a more fundamental role that the Internet has played in my life by changing the way I socially interact. The admittance of a computer and the Internet into my families’ household came with controversial acceptance. My parents were resistant to purchase a computer for the household, but were almost forced to by societal pressures of it being coined as “the future of technology and advancement”. It seemed like every day we would receive another AOL offer with the tiny black floppy disk in the mail.

My parents feared allowing my brother and myself into the expansive cyber world that had no virtual limits. Like Nathaniel Hawthorne saw the Air-Tight Wood Stove as a threat to social and domestic life in 1846, my parents feared a similar threat in the Internet. My first years experiencing the Internet were intertwined with a struggle in the household of my parents trying to resist the rapidly expanding technology; however, it didn’t take long for the Internet to become vastly important in my life.

The day my dad brought our first family computer home, the decision about where to place it was problematic. My dad needed the computer for work, however, knew my brother and I would be using it as well. He did not want to put it in his office because he didn’t want us fumbling through his workspace. My mother was the biggest skeptic about the computer, and did not want it placed in the house somewhere we couldn’t be monitored. So, a decorative chair from my parents’ bedroom was thrown out and a desk to house our new computer was put in. The aesthetic shift was abhorred by my mother, who much like Hawthorne abhorred the hideous stove in place of a beautiful fire. In addition to aesthetic, the new computer desk compromised a location in the house for social interaction. It became instead a new location of isolated interaction. Instead of sitting in my parents room, being able to talk with my mother and help her pick out what she was going to wear out at night, a new device was installed that my brother was incessantly glued to playing video games. The computer and internet games became problematic in our household. My brother would be so disconnected socially while he played games like NeoPets for hours and hours.

The detachment from interpersonal communication compromises children’s abilities to form meaningful relationships. This concept that Hawthorne saw in the wood stove, my parents saw in the Internet. So, a strict limit was placed on our time allotted to be online and even discouraged. As I got older and the Internet evolved even more, its presence inevitably became more prominent in my life. My early encounters with the Internet happened at home, and were somewhat negative in my parents attempt to limit and resist the technology. By the time I was in the 4^thgrade, computer classes were required in school. My computer teachers and librarians revealed a whole new and different approach to the Internet, very similar to attitude of Vannevar Bush and his envision of the Memex. While my early schooldays computer interaction consisted of somewhat pointless programs like “Oregon Trail”, it definitely sparked my interest in computers.

My true appreciation and adoration of the Internet did not develop until 5^th grade science fair. The 5^th grade science fair project was the first true research project I would complete as a student. I remember the librarian and my science teacher giving us a tour of the library, showing us how to use the card catalogue and how to locate books and periodicals. Then the librarian took us into the computer lab and gave us a tutorial of Google and Academic Search Engines. I fell in love. Information that would have taken me hours to look up, locate, and read, was acquired in seconds. The research process was almost fun, in that it was my first experience really browsing the web and realizing how much information was out there. The way Vannevar Bush enthusiastically envisioned the Memex as an instrumental creation for accessible information is the same way I then envisioned Google. I’d never have to use the library again.

When reflecting on the evolution of my interaction with the Internet, my experience was shaped by those who presented it to me. My first introduction to the Internet came within the household. My parents presented it in an extremely skeptical and negative light, fearing the same consequences Hawthorne feared with the emergence of the wood stove. Once presented the Internet in school, by teachers who had adopted the Internet advent, I was exposed to the many facets of the Internet. The Internet made everything so much easier and faster in research, which is exactly what Bush imagined. Now, I can’t imagine functioning without it.

Introductory Post

2011-08-28T11:02:00.001-07:00

I am Olivia Yergey and this is my first blog.