User talk:Chrissy9876/Free Culture (book)/sandbox

=Hello Bots= This page is where we are working out revisions for our class project, please don't delete it just because it's similar to the main free culture page! Thanks Chrissy9876 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(I kept getting bot messages that I had copied too much content from the main page)Chrissy9876 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

=Discussion=
 * Hi Group I. I am wondering where we are in our next steps? Can we each check in, say, by mid-night Monday, so tha we can agree to an outline of our strategy? I noticed that 2 of us self-assigned chapters. Are we still operating on this path? I'll go back and do the same, and hope that we will be in contact to move this to the next step. Thanks Chisholmredproject (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the list that Meiling provided on the talk page:


 * Intro _ Laura Nov. 30
 * Chpt 1 -"Creators" Ria Nov 30
 * Chpt 4 "Pirates" - Jacob Nov 29
 * Chpt 5 - "Piracy" - Wioleta Nov 30
 * Chpt 10 - "Property" Kiran Nov 30
 * Conclusion/Afterward - Maria Nov. 30
 * Critiques - Guest speaker Nov. 25

Let's try and focus on these sections first and, once we have them restructured, maybe it will help us to come up with the appropriate themes for the article to focus on. We can worry about the article theme afterward. How does that sound?

Meiling and I did self-assign, and I'm fine to keep the Intro and chapter 1. Should we re-read the sections we're working on, or are we only going off of the Core 1 commentary? Laura (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that we have each self-assigned, now so that all of the chapters are covered. I agree that we stick to these from CORE I as a start. I think it would be a good idea to (re)read each section as well as the commens by our colleagues (or in Laura's case- herself :) ) before we start our work. Should we set a time to meet in the sandbox for prepp'ing for Thursday? Chisholmredproject (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * New simplified thematic layout based on our email dialogue:

Laura provides an Intro; Janice works on the theme of Piracy; Chrissy works on the theme of Property; Mei-Ling works on Conclusion. Then, we leave open Puzzles and Balances. I would also add Critiques to this, which is something we do have blog posts on. Should we start "sandboxing" this below? Hmm having a feeling we are doing "talk" where we should be doing "sandbox..."?--Meilingaddress (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, I divided up our sandbox so we still can talk on it, but also so we can sandbox. See below. Chrissy9876 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dividing this up Chrissy. I should have my section up on the Sandbox by Monday, if not sooner. Laura (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks wonderful Chrissy. Thanks. I will work on getting "Piracy" in the sandbox for Monday. Chisholmredproject (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you all jumping in and writing content. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Group, I've just realized that the sandbox has an article page and a talk page like all other pages -- did you all know that? Well, it made me think that we can just talk here and then preview our new page in the sandbox article page (just click on article on the menu. What I've done is to paste what we would want to keep from the current free culture page there, and then add in our sections so that when we are done we can have a version of how our page would look that then we can paste over the current one.  I thought we could put the intro at the top of the themes heading before the piracy and property but then I couldn't think of how to fit in the conclusion section because technically conclusion is not a theme so maybe we could think of a way to rename that so it's a theme.  Anyway, take a look at our [|sandbox article page] and tell me what you think.  I hope you find this helpful Chrissy9876 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again Group -- I'm pretty much done with my section and I added one thing to the critical reception section. I'm planning a conference for this friday so I won't be checking in that much more this week because I'll be really busy, but I hope you like the page layout and good luck with your section Chrissy9876 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrissy- Thanks for your recent work on organizing our approach. This is really helpful. I will follow your lead and place my material on the sandbox article page. We're getting there Chisholmredproject (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right track. I think what you all need to do is follow Chrissy's model and just jump in an write your sections. Divide and conquer!--Theredproject (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still working, but thought I'd post the first bit here instead of on the sandbox article page. I'm just modifying what I've previously written, and will add content later tonight. Laura (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise. Note that our sandbox has been deleted/relocated Chisholmredproject (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi group, I added some content to the Piracy section just to finish up my work. I also reformatted the Preface, Introduction and Creators sections in the 'Chapters' section of the page. I removed the blockquotes and paraphrased. Laura (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

=Sandboxed Free Culture Page=

INTRODUCTION
(Laura)

Lessig defines “Free Culture” not as “free” as in “free beer”, but “free” as in “free speech”. A free culture supports and protects its creators and innovators directly and indirectly. It directly supports creators and innovators by granting intellectual property rights. It indirectly supports them by ensuring that follow-on creators and innovators remain as free as possible from the creators of the past by limiting how extensive intellectual property rights are. A “permissions culture” is the opposite of a free culture; in a permissions culture, creators and innovators are only able to create and innovate with the permission of creators of the past – whether they be powerful creators or not.

Lessig presents two examples that provide some insight into the nature of these dueling cultures.


 * In the first example, innovation trumps government regulation: the Wright brothers (and all subsequent aircraft manufacturers) were liberated from abiding by an outdated law mandating that individual property owners were owners of the air directly above their property, enabling any property owner to forbid aircrafts from flying over their property (see United States v. Causby). Aircrafts were deemed beneficial for the greater public good, and a ‘private interest’ (a claim to air property rights) would not outweigh such a beneficial technological advancement.  This is an example of a free culture; the Causby's did not have the power to stifle innovation, and air travel has since became a part of our culture.


 * The second example is a tragic version of a permissions culture: an innovator, Edwin Howard Armstrong, invented a wideband frequency modulation (FM) radio – a (non-intentional) rival radio spectrum FM to RCA’s AM radio spectrum - and was met with fierce opposition and legal bullying from David Sarnoff, RCA’s president. Because Sarnoff was a “superior tactician,” RCA successfully petitioned the government to delay the deployment of FM radio, and ultimately succeeded in moving Armstrong’s FM spectrum onto its own separate spectrum band to “kill” it. This is an example of a powerful past innovator (RCA) using the government to force new innovators to request “permission” to build upon past inventions. In this case, “permission” was not granted, and the new innovation was not allowed to flourish (though we know now that FM radio did Flourish, Armstrong committed suicide before his invention was vindicated). Sarnoff's powerful position enabled him to successfully stifle innovation, preventing (albiet temporarily) the creation of culture.

The disparate features of a free culture and a permissions culture effect how culture is made. In a free culture, innovators are able to create - and build upon past creations - without the worry of infringing upon intellectual property rights. In a permissions culture, innovators must first request "permission" from past creators in order to build upon or modify past creations. Often times, the innovator must pay the past creator in order to obtain the permission needed to procede. If the past creator refuses to grant permission to the innovator, the past creator may appeal to the government to enforce their intellectual property rights. Typically, intellectual property rights protect culture that is produced and sold, or made to be sold. This type of culture is commercial culture, and the focus of the law is typically on commercial creativity rather than non-commercial activity. Initially, the law, "protected the incentives of creators by granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could sell those exclusive rights in a commercial marketplace." This protection has become far more extensive, as is evinced in the Armstong/RCA example.

Lessig argues that we are fast becoming a permissions culture, though he sees the internet as a modern-day Armstrong: it challenges the traditional innovator and seeks to break free of any permissions or strict regulations. The internet can provide a vastly more vibrant and competitive innovation culture, and this is troublesome for any large corporations that have invested in fortifying their intellectual property rights: "Corporations threatened by the potential of the internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them." The internet has facilitated the mass production of culture, both commercial and noncommercial. Corporations that had traditionally controlled this production have reacted by pressuring legislators to change the laws to protect their interests. The protection that these corporations seek is not protection for the creators, but rather protection against certain forms of business that directly threaten them. Lessig’s worry is that intellectual property rights will not be protecting the right sort of property, but will instead come to protect private interests in a controlling way. He writes that the First Amendment protects creators against state control and copyright law, when properly balanced, protects creators against private control. Expansive intellectual property rights stands to dramatically increase all regulations on creativity in America, stifling innovation by requiring innovators to request permission prior to their creative work.

Lessig writes at the end of the Preface, “…the free culture that I defend in this book is a balance between anarchy and control. A free culture, like a free market, is filled with property. It is filled with rules of property and contract that get enforced by the state. But just as a free market is perverted if its property becomes feudal, so too can a free culture be queered by extremism in the property rights that define it.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingfisherBlue11 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PIRACY
"How free is this culture?" According to Lessig, ours has been but is decreasingly a free culture. Free cultures leave content open for expansion by others. Purportedly, this is not a new practice, but one that is increasingly challenged, mostly for economic reasons by creators and industry. The conflict or “war against piracy” emerges out of efforts to regulate creative property in order to delimit the use of creative property without permission. As Lessig sees it, "the law's role is less and less to support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against competition."

First defining and then pointedly critiquing a prevalent "if value, then right" notion of creative property, Lessig emphasizes that American law recognizes intellectual property as an instrument.* Lessig points out that “if value, then right” is correct, then film, recorded music, radio, and cable TV each is built on a history of piracy.* Lessig details the history of these four "pirates"* as examples of how pervasive has been the practice of making use of others's creative property without permission. Importantly, Lessig points out that throughout human history "every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking." This free culture has historically been deliberate, and widely appreciated.In fact, "creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the creativity that wnet before and that surrounds them now." )

Lessig goes on to suggest that the advent of the Internet has changed our culture, and along with it the expectation and acceptance of creative priacy. In particular, the internet has brought about a 'war against piracy.'* At the heart of the heat is a question about the reach, benefit, and burden of copyright law. The internet is a bold challenge to the "natural limit to the reach of the law" ,and therein lies the quandry. The presence of the internet instigates and fans the flames of the piracy war by virtue of its inherent ability to very quickly and indiscriminately spread content.

Ultimately, Lessig leaves us to deliberate that "even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all piracy is." Finding the balance is, has been, and needs to contniue to be the process of US law ,); internet use, as exemplified by peer to peer (p2p) file sharing pushes the envelope.

PROPERTY
(on sandbox Article page).

Conclusions
In conclusion, Lessig uses the disproportionate number of HIV and AIDS victims in Africa and other poor countries to further his argument that the current control of intellectual property--in this case, patents to HIV drugs--defy "common sense." He describes the drug company lobbying in the U.S. to prevent reduced prices for their drugs in Africa but he holds the government and society responsible for failing to "revolt" against this injustice. He calls for a "sensible patent policy" that could support the patent system but enable flexibility in distribution, a "sense of balance" he says once existed historically but has now been lost.

In the afterword, Lessig proposes practical solutions to the dispute over intellectual property rights, in hope that common sense and a proclivity toward free culture be revived. His ideas include emulating the structure of the Creative Commons in complement to copyright; invoking more formalities for in the exercise of creativity online (marking copyrighted work, registering copyrights, and renewing claims to copyright); limiting the role of the Copyright Office in developing marking systems; shorter copyright terms (enough to incentivize creativity, but no more) and simpler language; and moving the concerns out copyright of the purview of expensive lawyers and more into public sphere.

Critical Reception
In a review in the The New York Times, Adam Cohen found Free Culture to be a "powerfully argued and important analysis," where Lessig argues persuasively that we are in a crisis of cultural impoverishment. However, he says that "after taking us to this point, 300 pages into his analysis," Lessig "fails to deliver," and his proposals are both "impractical and politically unattainable."

David Post argues that Lessig shows that "free culture" has always been a part of our intellectual heritage and illuminates the tension between the already created and not yet created. Although Post generally agrees with Lessig's argument, he does point out that copyrights are property rights and "property rights are, as a general rule, a good thing" and that Lessig does not do enough in his book to address this side of the debate.

Changes to the original page
As I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (Michael Mandiberg), it looks like User:DavidMCEddy has jumped on the "Free Culture (book)" article and markedly improved it. His changes should likely be taken into account for any further revisions that are planned for this book's page. Usually, this sort of thing happening isn't a problem -- when it happens it's usually more of a "Hey, I found some person who likes to make the same types of edits that I do on the same types of articles, let's be friends!" I can see that this could be problematic for a school class, though, since you may have felt some degree of "ownership" in the assigned article -- I saw that DavidMCEddy was invited to work with you all as a group. I've talked with him and apparently because of SOPA and related things he felt that this was an important book to work on, and didn't want to wait for you all -- I can't fault him for that, because the edits that he's made are really quite good. I guess you can step up and see what can be done to push the article to featured article status, which would really be impressive, or perhaps you might be able to pick a new article, or be graded on the contributions already made to this version of the article, whatever your teacher says. Let me know on my talk page if I can be of any further help.

I've nominated the Free Culture (book) article for Peer review so that you all can have further suggestions on how to improve the article, possibly pushing it up to featured article status. Banaticus (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Banaticus, the students have been engaging User:DavidMCEddy in an ongoing conversation on the article talk page. One of the big problems with User:DavidMCEddy's contribs is that they are mostly just block quotes, which is (as far as I understand) not kosher in Wikipedia guidlines b/c of copyright issues, no? I have a class session with the students today, and we will discuss this.--Theredproject (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)