Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of California, Berkeley/Politics of Digital Piracy (Spring 2013)/Week 4 assignment

Reading
Required Reading:
 * “What is Copyleft?” GNU Project- Free Software Foundation


 * “Guide to Open Licensing” Knowledge Foundation.

“Share Alike(SA) Licensing"
 * Creative Commons "About the Licenses" and

Suggested Reading
 * “GNU’s Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 5 – First appearance of article on What is copyleft?”

Questions
If you are in group A, please answer the questions in this section (below) by 'editing' the page and copying your responses. At the end of your response please sign your user name by typing four ~(4 tildes).


 * Question: Do you agree that it is important for people to be able to reuse free software in a commercial setting? Why or why not?  Can you think of an argument as to why using open licensing for software could be damaging (to yourself or others)?

Response (Group A)
Group A, please type your responses here. Atavel (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The reading this week introduced us to two different forms of copyright licensing that respect the wishes of the producer/author while promoting (relatively) free use of the work- “copyleft” and “open licensing.” I believe that these methods present an appealing compromise by using copyright to combat some issues to public use that may arise that are unintended by the original producer/ author. For example, the first webpage mentioned that work put in public domain can be changed into proprietary software if the appropriate precautions are not taken. As a lawyer-to-be, I find the idea that law can be used to make copyright consistent with the desires of authors who wish to relinquish their exclusive rights attractive. For example, the “ShareALike” feature of the Creative Commons copyright licenses ensures that those who use a work must return the favor and not claim exclusive rights to derivative works. This way, the generosity of the person who originally made it accessible isn’t taken advantage of by having someone else claim rights to what is effectively their work. These licenses appear to be predicated on fairness and a sense of consistency of purpose. Editingcontent2 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who’s used creative commons a few times, I’ve always looked at the different licenses on a case-by-case basis. My process is: I want to use this picture, what kind of copyright does the picture have, look up terms of the particular copyright, use picture if the copyright doesn’t require much fuss or look for a new picture. My point is, copyright has become so varied, it isn’t always easy to use Creative Commons in the way that it was intended to be used. Reading about the terms of these different copyrights is almost an overload of information for someone who isn’t already somewhat familiar. So I wonder, as the world becomes more media oriented will copyright law be taught as a part of public education? How will public education change to incorporate this new information? Melconser (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While the ideas of Copyleft, open licensing, and Creative Commons offer alternatives to traditional copyright, both open licensing and Copyleft have the potential to be problematic. Open licensing, for example, allows the licensees full freedom, regardless of their motives. This, as Copyleft's manifesto argues, can be detrimental to the mission of free and open software if that middleman chooses to make the open software into proprietary software. Copyleft, while resolving the issue of the middleman, presents a slightly more nuanced problem. While conceptually the idea of Copyleft is great, the way it is presented may not be as accessible or easy-to-understand for people who are unfamiliar with software licensing, and seems to only apply to software in the description. This is where Creative Commons presents a solution - it is written for "normal" people (such as artists who may or may not be familiar with software licensing or lingo), in plain language, with lots of visuals. This, in my opinion, gives it the potential to much more widespread and offers a much wider variety of options that are easy to understand and implement. Kaylaholderbein (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that it is important to be able to reuse free software in a commercial setting. The ability to reuse free software gives users the ability to modify the end product that they receive. In doing so, they also make the product better for the next user. The distinction between commercial and proprietary becomes crucial because what is commercial can also be free. Interestingly enough, the GNU Ada is a commercial compiler but it is free software. The compiler is then independently developed by users and made free to the public. However, open licensing can be problematic if the author of the changes attributes those changes to the original product. For instance, GNU does not guarantee the quality or functionality of a program that has been modified from one of their tools (like Autotools). GNU asks that the recipients of the modified product be made aware that this wasn’t their original project. What happens when this sort of communication fails? Or even simply not executed? Who is liable for the failure of a modified program in open source that the public was unaware was modified from the original? RKan (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think it is important for commercial reuse of software to exist, but I certainly don't consider it a necessity. As with most of these things, I believe it should be up to the original author's discretion as to whether derivative works can be sold commercially. For instance, there are definitely cases where a piece of software was distributed openly, and another person came along and contributed to that software in a significant way. Maybe the updated software is essentially a new product, or has drastically improved user feedback, or is indistinguishable from the original, etc. However, the fact is that any changes to the original software were inspired by the original software, and as such, must respect the original author's intentions for redistribution. I don't think any future author of a work has some inherent right to commercially use the improved version, and instead he must pay his dues to the original author by obeying his licensing decisions. Open licensing could certainly be damaging in this sense; after all, if a student or unemployed person works on a product and makes substantial improvements to it, but is unable to sell the new product, he might find that he can't financially support further development of the product. In this way, the barrier to entry for working on free software is in some senses raised, because contributors cannot always count on their work being financially compensated. However, as I mentioned above, I believe that the original author has the right to decide whether such a license should be used, as ultimately he was the one who generated these collaborations in the first place. Gloudas (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Open source licensing options, such as Copyleft and Creative Commons, are an important middle ground between the complete legal lockdown of permissions that comes with copyright and the completely unrestricted “anything goes” mentality of the public domain. In the world of software, where the goal is (hopefully) to release programs that make the lives of daily computer users and companies easier, either of those extremes seem detrimental. Copyrights may protect your ownership of the program, but they also set you up for constant legal battles when someone knowingly or unknowingly releases a similar set of code and tries to take credit for it themselves. Sending it to the public domain stops that particular headache, but on the condition that you're 150% sure you're never going to ask for compensation or assert some kind of ownership over the work in the future. Thankfully for those headaches, there's open licensing options like Copyleft and Creative Commons. Provided that you got the ideal license type for your work and understand the sometimes confusing legal language that has to be included, you can always receive credit for the work you've done and not worry about permissions. However, the one problem that could arise is if the average guy with no knowledge of how licensing really works just gets whatever he wants and accidentally license a work in a way that they never wished. Creative commons is more clear to understand than copyleft, but of course there's still going to be some legal language scattered throughout the main body of the license in order to keep actual lawyers away from loopholes and the like.Jimmyslope (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In terms of considering the importance of free software the argument is made that absent copyright law, progress is hindered because there is little incentive to develop. However, the same critics often ignore the counterfactual existence of open source, Creative Commons, Copyleft, etc works. This is not to say that no one should get paid for their works, but rather empirically there are people who don't ask for the same type of compensation. In a society where works have the possibility to be more freely distributed, it will always be better than a society with legal restrictions, even if it is marginally. This system allows for a bifurcation in the sense that people can either choose to or not pursue a copyright. In terms of damage done, consider the following: Programmer A is making a program to be distributed in the subsequent year. He has no preference as to whether the program is free or cost money. He receives a large amount of code from some program by Sun Microsystems, under the agreement to pay royalty X. He also gets a license for some code from a Creative Commons work, under the agreement that any derivative work will be free. The problem now is that the only way he could offset the royalty fee would be through a paid product, which he cannot do. He would be damaged to the extent that he would have to forgo one of the areas of code.Radeonhead (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Benjamin Porter

Copy left is just another analogy to say that sharing files and software is legal because it helps commerce. However, if it were up to me, there should be charge for sharing software because it is hard work of someone else. This just means that you will be working on something for hundreds of hours and other just uses it without you getting any credit. This is because sharing ideas to improve a better market through using free versions for people to start their own businesses. Maybe not just the market of ones business, but it can sure help that person with any personal use ideas they may have. However, being able to share software may open more possibilities to improve the previous software. This should also come at a price. Fredy2012 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Fredy

I definitely feel that it is important to use free software in all environments, including commercial as there is no sense in reinventing the wheel every single time someone needs to code something. In cases where the wheel is something so fundamental that every coding application would have to remake it and it would take so much effort to enforce, it is often more reasonable to make it open source. An example of this is file types. If no one is allowed to make an mp3, then it limits the ability of small time artist and normal users to do so. In such a case a free mp3 encoder (LAME) was developed instead. This however is an example of when a free alternative may be threatening to your livelihood as it is creates extreme competition. Why would anyone use a paid version if there is a free one out there? MarkDavidoff UCB (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyleft is an all too important concept in the digital era of the 21st century. The open-source technologies and the free exchange of information has introduced many issues to our modern world when it comes to determining legal ownership of intangible goods. We have transitioned to an age of collaboration and remix, and our institutions must adapt accordingly. With Creative Commons, there still remains an element of control with the option of multiple forms of licensing, while at the same time, it is still working to achieve the greater goal of universal open information exchange. Yes, the original developers of tech projects should receive compensation and credit when due, but that does not mean that this same software cannot be further expanded upon and developed into a superior product. All of the major players in the music, film, and software industries have begun accommodating this new age in their own ways, with many standing divided in their beliefs, but we must nevertheless come to a common solution that recognizes this remix culture as a very real institution in modern 21st century society that stretches across all realms of digital media, and address it accordingly! IanElli (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Current Events (Group B)
Group B, please post your articles below this. In order to make the title of the article a link, do as follows: [www.thisisthelinktomycurrentevent.com "My Current Event"] Please note that there is just one space between the link and the quotation mark enclosing the title. As with the reading response, just sign your name next to you article by typing four of these: ~ (4 tildes).

"Obama administration defends $220,000 file sharing verdict" Cp123127 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"My Current Event" Chadyy (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Chadyy

"British High Court Denies Hollywood Repayment from Online Piracy" Enaha (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mostly a small fun example of Public Domain coming into play: "Beatles "Love me do" Hits Public Domain in Europe. And while it's not really current, there is also an interesting and semi-related article here that I think is interesting: "Copyright extension: good for Cliff and the Beatles, bad for the little guys?" Adrianvallence (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

http://watchdog.org/?x=3&y=8&s=north+dakota+bill+would+kill+digital+inheritance Tigstep (talk)tigstep

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-29/tech/tech_web_obama-reddit-open-internet_1_web-freedom-internet-freedom-internet-piracy ORambo (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-to-the-pirate-bay-we-want-you-to-sue-us-130216/ Dkingg

(Just popping this here since we were talking about it in class today): "Watch the Pirate Bay documentary here (or there, or everywhere)"Adrianvallence (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Former File-Sharing Site Admin Fined 6.4 Million Euros" Pringles012 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"MP3 Rocket builds Creative Commons filter into its newest search engine" IanElli (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

http://torrentfreak.com/fox-targets-pirate-bay-proxies-with-bogus-dmca-requests-130309/ -Dkingg

Reminders

 * We'll begin discussing our Editing Wikipedia semester-long projects next week in class.
 * The reading responses should be 1-2 paragraphs, but no more than one page.
 * If you wish to indent your response type one or more colons (":") at the start of it.
 * Take a look at this (especially if you're having trouble with formatting) Wiki markup quick reference – This one-page quick reference (included in the Welcome to Wikipedia brochure) helps you to remember the most frequently used wiki markup codes.