Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Politics of Piracy (Kevin Gorman and Katie Gilmore)/Timeline/2/archive

Education has always served the purpose of separating the plebes from the world changers. It used to be that literacy was the dividing line. However, while text remains important, another main cultural shaper (especially in America) is media. The inner city kids in this article were not exposed, or sufficiently convinced to the power of books, but they were deeply exposed to the power of media. Their dedication to working from 6am to 5pm reflected to act upon the world in the most relevant way they saw possible. Books and the written word were simply another world they have not yet seen.

While it is important to be technologically literate, especially in our technology-rich world, it is also a disservice to disregard the 'text' world. Ideally, a literate citizen should be literate in both technology and text. Systems have a certain level of inertia, and while becoming technologically literate might set us up for the future, it is still handicapping us in the present.

rapyture (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.42.146 (talk)

Not done this before so I might be doing this all wrong but here goes!

'In the way that Lessig states that the Kodak’s biggest breakthrough “was not economic. It was social.” (33) Are currently contested technologies great implications economic or social?'

The implications of currently contested technologies can be argued to be both economic and social. With good quality media technologies becoming more affordable it's easier to produce photographs, music, and even (to some extent)film, to a high standard of quality. This means that such forms of media expression become more accessible and therefore, as with the photograph, enable non-professionals to master these forms.

However, by so doing the necessity for many aspects of large media producing companies is marginalised, causing an economic impact on these industries. Piracy has caught attention, especially the use of p2p file sharing, as these media producing companies seem to equate their losses in profits to the rise of such copyright infringing pirates. Unfortunately for these companies, the relative social apathy surrounding media piracy, and its widespread reach, make the likelihood of stopping such activities slim. Not only this but a large proportion of media piracy is distributed and consumed for free. The media industries, fighting this battle against piracy, could be seen as the modern equivalent of the American Daguerre Association, struggling to keep profit margins up against the tide of technological advances that may end up fundamentally changing media production and distribution, as well as having a large social impact on how we deal with issues of copyright and intellectual property. This is already happening to some extent, as can be seen by the deviantART comment reading,where many people producing their own media did not see free distribution as a problem, only the profitable use of their work and the lack of credit where appropriate...I think.

OneMadRabbit (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to question 2: "In photography’s history “Freedom was the default.” (34) With the advent of digital rights permission is the default. Is there a reason to choose either freedom or permission initially (with or without the flexibility to change later)?"

Whenever an issue of freedoms versus permissions arises in society today, freedom is most often considered to be the radical choice. So many people view art or information in a strictly limited sense, given only to the artist or informer. However, this should not be the case. Freedom in digital rights and distribution is absolutely essential to allow further creativity and expression in the community. Artists often use other works not only in their own, but also as inspiration for further works. When working on projects, the free use of technologies allows an expanded skill set. It is understandable that digital rights would try to limit access and use to help improve profit, but the downside to this is a limit in availability to those unable to afford it. An improved solution to this is initial freedom with less restrictions on sharing and distribution. Alexandertyler (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Alexandertyler

In response to question 3 (by Tiantong Qin): "Lessig describes the new languages that we are brought up with, and simulataneously shining light on the possibility, “the crucial point: it could be both read write.” (37) Do we have a read-write culture around the picked-on old format: text?"

Lessig described the new language of images, sounds, and text emerging in the 21st century, and proposed that it could be both read and write. However, I do not believe either the old language format of text-only nor the new format of pictures, graphics, and video have shifted the direction significantly in the direction of both read and write. It is true that with new forms of media more possibilities of expression have opened up, and some people have taken advantage of this, but generally self-expression is a cultural phenomenon, and if people are exposed to the same experiences, the value of expression diminishes, as with modern media, and expression is also largely dictated by demand for content, so with popular TV and internet sites monopolizing our attention, I find it unlikely for a dramatic cultural shift in the direction of both read and write developing from the current standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiantongQ (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Question 2 (by Ryan Wedell): In photography’s history “Freedom was the default.” (34) With the advent of digital rights permission is the default. Is there a reason to choose either freedom or permission initially (with or without the flexibility to change later)?

The reason permission was and should be chosen initially as the default for digital media is because of the fact that there is a large portion of digital media that is bought and sold on the market. Digital media is a form of personal property entitled to whomever created that media. With the idea of property rights in mind, ownership over this media should not be relinquished without the given consent of the owner. If the owner chooses to put a price on their digital media, that is up to them, provided that their sales are taxed and regulated by the federal government. The realm of digital media is vast enough, however, that there should definitely be flexibility to change for the future. Just as with photography, if the digital media in mind is a video of something public, the owner of that video should not have the right to sell and profit off of that content. In that case, freedom should be granted. Permission should be reserved for digital media that has been created directly by the owner, such as an album, film, or other forms of creative entertainment. Providing the protection of intellectual property for creative feats such as these will help to encourage the development of more artistic and creative work in the future as well. Wedell30 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: 'In the way that Lessig states that the Kodak’s biggest breakthrough “was not economic. It was social.” (33) Are currently contested technologies great implications economic or social?' Response: I believe that Lessig's statement is half true, for Kodak's breakthrough was both social and economic. It is no secret that this generated a huge revenue and eventually a huge corporate and profit generating company. Cheap easy to use cameras that were accessable to everyone created huge profit and innovation. On the flip side it was a hugely social. People were able to document their lives, whether it be family, thoughts, art, trips, places, experiences, ect. People were able to not only make memories but keep and frame them. This allowed other generations to see what previous generations did for fun or thought was special enough to photograph and were able to see the world as it was before them. This also created a way for future generations to express themselves. For, this type of technology eventually turned digital and children from ten years of age were able to start taking photos with digital cameras and iPhones. This started a snowball effect into taking pictures more easily and being able to post them anywhere (like the internet where we find Deviantart's blog relevant). 98.207.137.9 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Rebecca Kavanaugh

In response to Question 3 (Nitya Bhaskar): Lessig describes the new languages that we are brought up with, and simulataneously shining light on the possibility, “the crucial point: it could be both read write.” (37) Do we have a read-write culture around the picked-on old format: text? An advantage presented by new digital media is that it opens doors for alternative types of learning that were largely unavailable in the past. People who are illiterate or do not have the textual means to express themselves now have a plethora of different mediums that they can use to record and translate their thoughts and experiences. On the other hand, the “old” version of physical text cannot necessarily be overlooked in favor of new technology because despite the development of cheaper tools, there is still much of the population in several cultures that does not have access to digital media. In such cases, people have no other option than to express themselves through written text, if they choose to do so. While technology may develop and pose several advantages to recipients, there are also segments that are reliant on the written culture of text, which still remains dependable, even if not always consistent with the new wave of digital advancement. Nityadb (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nityadb (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

--- Of all the innovation and advantages to new media such as blogs and collaborative software, can you foresee any malevolent uses and should they be regulated rather than receiving free passes for being novel inventions?

The potential behind new media and collaborative software exists largely thanks to the peace of the world. Due to the largely non-violent dissolution of the Soviet Union and other peaceful revolutionary movements throughout the globe there had been little need to turn the peacefully developed technologies into weapons, but there is may not last in the future.

In Syria, government forces have rallied their own tech savy collaborators into defacing the work of dissidents and tracking the activities of resistance groups. In South Korea, the North Koreans allegedly were able utilize complex file sharing software to their advantage and did major damage against a large banking firm in that country.

Technology can be harnessed for almost any cause and so can be used malevolently. The issue of regulation, though, needs to be one guided by an estimation of the threat and danger it poses versus the probability it will happen and the cost of protection. Terrorists will post videos on Youtube. Governments will track dissidents on Facebook. I think that the appropriate solution is not governmental regulation but an appropriate level of citizen involvement. If individuals will take steps to control their environment, then these problems may be kept under some level of control. -Jacob Portnoff

In response to question 2: "In photography’s history “Freedom was the default.” (34) With the advent of digital rights permission is the default. Is there a reason to choose either freedom or permission initially (with or without the flexibility to change later)?" There are a number of reasons to choose either freedom or permission initially when it comes to this age of digital rights. If permission wasn't the default, artists might see their creations getting taken and modified by others over and over again, without getting any credit themselves for the original work. Such an occurrence could compel the artist to quit creating original content altogether, if they are convinced that their works would just get stolen again. So in this way, it can be argued that permission is necessary to further creativity of original works. At the same time, the freedom of an individual to take in inspiration from another's work truly allows for more creativity and expression, as Alexandertyler said.

Jim Jarmusch, an independent director, once said something that I believe relates quite a bit to this whole argument of Freedom vs. Permission:

(The quote is kind of long but I love it)

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to.' " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilawesome (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to the first question (Jason Duval): In the way that Lessig states that the Kodak’s biggest breakthrough “was not economic. It was social.” (33) Are currently contested technologies great implications economic or social? I think as new technologies are constantly being made and new forms of media are still being developed, changes develop in both areas of the economy as well as socially. The big obvious example of this to me would be the internet. With the internet boom in the '90s, the global economy soared, with people making billions of dollars using this new form of information. But it changed forever how people learn and experience life, with everything we can do on the internet other than share information. The way society functions is vastly different nowadays thanks to the internet. Like the article described with blogs, people across the world or across the street can discuss hot button issues or simply give advise. As companies are making new source codes for different programs, people will be able to use them to whatever they want (provided it is allowed). The article addresses this issue quite nicely with the example of photography and photography "piracy". The economy benefits greatly from new technologies as it gives new products to be commercialized, and the public will be able to do things they couldn't previously. Using the iPhone example, Apple was able to make the smart phone something not just for business types. Within 5 years of the product being available, a good majority of students now have access to the world wide web from their smart phone, which now comes with a very wide selection. People don't just have Blackberries, or iPhones, but there are several options for people to choose a phone that fits their needs and capabilities. SwungNinth (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to the first question: Lessig argues that Kodak’s biggest breakthrough was social rather than economic because of the fact that its social impact on society was so much larger than the economic market that photography developed. With the passage of time and the expansion of the business sector not to mention the population, today I would argue that contested technologies have both huge economic and social impacts. Take the advent of facebook for example: it has developed into a gargantuan company over a relatively short amount of time and no one in their right minds can deny the social impact it’s had all over the globe. Debatably no other technology has fused the world together in such a way since the birth of the internet. Ramona1f (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Ramona F.

In response to question 1: I would have to say both. For instance, the only thing right now that readily comes to mind for me is peoples use of bittorrent on the internet. Through bittorrent, its incredibly easy to obtain movies, games, music, and other media that you would normally have to pay huge sums for. Of course, with bittorrent, its all free. If you're getting this stuff for free, the creators of said goods obviously aren't reaping the benefits, and that in itself has huge economic implications. Iguerreroucb (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Isaac G.

Response to question 1: Choosing either answer to this question exclusively would be downplaying the complexity of our current situations regarding those currently contested technologies, which includes the downloading of music, video games, movies, books, and other forms of media, and also includes the presence of so-called objectionable content such as pornography and/or subversive ideas on the web. Thus, I'd argue that our current situation has both deep economic and social implications. A vast majority of our society now has an unprecedentedly huge wealth of information and media available to it, which is, in my opinion, mainly a good thing. It allows individuals who might otherwise be closed off to the rest of the world to be connected and learn about what's out there (and, since everyone is closed off to the rest of the world to some extent, this applies to everyone). It allows individuals to experience a much larger scope of the world compared to what they used to, and, the way I see it, this is only beneficial toward building a more unified planet since familiarity breeds acceptance (ideally, at least). Other social implications include exposure to the aforementioned objectionable content, though what affect this has on an individual, I am less sure of. The economic implications are pretty clear, since the big issue of piracy is people getting stuff for free that they'd otherwise probably have to pay for had the internet never been invented, and it's interesting to see how some deal with piracy - some embrace it as inevitable and work with it, some take legal action against it, some implement anti-piracy measures into the media that they release, and in all these measures, there are always various financial incentives behind them. Nkittikul (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to question #4: From the perspective that new media such as blogs can allow users to post uninhibited and uncensored thoughts without revealing their true identities, there is a distinct possibility that malevolent and caustic messages can be spread fast. Blogs allow for a whole new medium of expression where users can hide behind a veil and express themselves how ever they deem fit. With that in mind, people can spread hateful messages without worry of being caught, to a certain extent. However, restricting this outlet of free speech is not the way to go. Regulating this form of free speech can hinder expressive forms of thought - like the author of the article explained, we learn by tinkering with others' ideas. Content should be left free-flowing so that others can learn from it, both from the good and the bad. The internet as like the modern town square, which allows for information to flow faster and give more people a voice in the democracy. While we should still try to protect intellectual property, we should let the internet remain a medium to provoke thought. Phister44 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to question 1 In terms of current technologies, it is difficult to verify whether it used for more economical or social purposes. With advertisements and marketing strategies targeted towards those who are interested in social networking, it seems as though technology is advancing in a more social path. But with this type of interaction comes the possibility of economical expansion through networking and combining the social aspects with prosperous gain. For example, many companies and even government institutions are using well known social networking sites in order to inform the public of certain promotions or to just gain awareness in general. This not only brings in the social part of current technologies, but also brings about the more economic purposes of promoting ones interests. Overall, I would say that the current technology is more social, but there are some parts of economics creeping in. Minjinl (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to question number 2
Hi, My name is George. I like rice and I collect stamps. Here's a useful answer. Lemmmma (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to question #1
In the way that Lessig states that the Kodak’s biggest breakthrough “was not economic. It was social.” (33) Are currently contested technologies great implications economic or social?

I feel that the implications of today’s contested technologies are not exclusively social, nor entirely economical. Rather, it is a mix of the two with the economic implications perhaps being the more tangible. For example, if business people see a loss in their revenues, many successful businesses are able to identify the causes. If the cause of decreased sales can be attributed to “piracy” then that is certainly hard to ignore as a business that is trying to maximize profit. Additionally, there are significant social changes that the Internet has brought which begins with the simplicity and wide use of peer-to-peer (p2p) sharing. Information, data, programs, applications, etc. are all much more readily available making such information much less exclusive. For example, not too long ago, one would have to drive down to the store and buy a physical copy of the newest album of one’s favorite artist. However, a number of people are taking advantage of the same album through the Internet without that trip and more importantly without the payment. Making such things more readily available typically causes more people to acquire the information than if they had to work harder for it (drive, pay, etc.). With “nothing to lose” people seem to be much more open and willing to give things a chance when “pirating” on the Internet than ever before. Ecalifano (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

-Edward Califano

The Internet is a relatively new innovation that is being used for both economic and social opportunities. Facebook is a great example of a website that has social outreach. Facebook originally was used to simply allow friends to share gossip and photos on the web in a new, fun way. However, Facebook has changed significantly in the past few years to have a more economic purpose. Facebook started using people's personal information to advertise to its users in a personalized way. Facebook is also being used by virtually every business to advertise, get publicity and essentially make more money. Businesses can simply create a Facebook page for free, and then users around the globe can 'like' their page. Businesses' pages will be suggested to users if several of their friends 'like' that business's page.Skpande (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)