Dalis Collins

Ok, well I was kinda of interested in the topic of virtual worlds and opened the required reading, Avatars and their Creators, early. From our discussion in class, I was actually disgusted by the entire idea which naturally being an average American rather than deterring me from further exploration piqued my curiosity enough that I dived in. With obesity and the lack of real relationships a real problem in today’s society, this just seemed like fuel for the fire. Therefore, I was not surprised to find the picture of the teenager who was grossly obese and dropped out of school because of his obsession with the game.
However, I was surprised by the amount of good these activities had to offer. I was especially struck by the picture of the teenage on the respirator who explained that the game was his connection to the outside world. In the “real” world, people are often awkward around him or do not give him the respect and independence he craves because of his disability. The game gave him an opportunity to experience things that would otherwise be impossible and form meaningful relationships with other players that was not biased by his disability.
There were numerous other stories like this. From the guild members from all over the US that supported its other members after Katrina to the woman who conquered her inability to connect with people, it just goes to show that nothing is all bad. I still feel strongly against its excesses. It is addictive like gambling, but with proper moderation and restriction has a place in the world. I believe its uses for people with social anxiety, autism, and other disabilities and disorders needs to be investigated. This could be one of the strongest tools at our disposal that is currently underutilized because no one is doing the necessary research and education.
I have to admit I personally feel like for the average person investing too much time in “virtual” worlds is pathetic (strong word, I know). I would hate to see “virtual” hiking replace real hiking. I would hate to see “virtual” meetings replace real. I would hate to see the beauty of the world around us replaced by the insignificance contained in a 12” by 12” screen.

Blogs and Democracy

Lessig’s comments on free culture dealing with blogs and free speech via the internet was very interesting. I had never really considered the difference between news on television and news on the internet because when I search for news I generally go to one of the major channel’s websites and it’s the same thing you see on TV. However, there are many other types of news and information resources available over the internet, and these sources do have some advantages over TV. Mainstream media is profit-based and clearly biased. CNN, FOX, and NBC (among others) cater to their audiences and present news in an entertaining and interesting way that people will want to watch. On the other hand, internet bloggers and independent sources can give an almost unlimited number of perspectives on an event, allowing the viewer to form his or her own opinion based on the information rather than viewing the pre-fabricated opinion of a news network. While bloggers don’t have the same resources as professional reporters to do full investigative journalism, they offer perspectives that professionals simply cannot provide. Because bloggers are not motivated by profit, they can be much more liberal in their delivery and in the information that they present. Lessig compares bloggers to Olympic athletes, amateurs participating based on passion alone. He believes that this leads to a broad range of perspectives which lets readers “triangulate” to the truth. The most important facet of blogging is that there is no “gatekeeper” who controls the information that is presented. This allows more unlimited information and communication and is a proponent of democracy.

Second Life.. Out of Control

I had never heard of this concept of "Second Life" before the assigned reading for class. I was absolutely blown away by the idea in general, and when discussing further Second Life issues in class on Thursday, I couldn't believe the things I heard. First off, if you don't know exactly what Second Life is, it's an internet program in which you create an "avatar" (a person/animal that represents you in Second Life) and interact with other avatars online. It sounds like a fun chatroom right? Not exactly. Apparently, from what I gathered, users on Second Life go to dance clubs, create buildings, earn money, and pay real money (which I believe is called "Linden Dollars" after the creator of Second Life) to do various things. Furthermore, users can engage in sexual activity with others avatars.
In class, we read articles and discussed the problems and challenges people have with Second Life. For some, it's just a game to meet new people and chat on occasion. For others, it's a way of life. Some people spend hours on end on Second Life, treating it almost as their own real life. How is this healthy? Why don't these people just live out their own lives in the real world rather than have a fake one online?
Another topic that came up in class is Second Life relationships. We read two articles that discussed the sex aspect of Second Life. Would you break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend or even your spouse if you knew they were having a Second Life relationship? Why on earth would they choose to have a Second Life relationship in the first place? The first article we read discussed how there is an emotional intimacy attached to Second Life relationships. The next talked about couples who broke up with/divorced their significant others for their Second Life "cheating." I think all of this talk of relationships on Second Life is nonsense. I don't think an online relationship counts as true love to any extent.

The Pleasure Principle

After I listened to this radio link about homophily, I think it was interesting topic that to be discussed. Social scientist call "homophily" refer to the principle of ‘birds of a feather flock together’ means that benefit from the collective interest of a particular group. Ethan Zuckerman, blogger and internet theorist, has been trying to fight this natural force of human during online. He offers techniques for surprising and challenging readers with news that they didn't know they wanted.

I agree with him about homophily has something danger of making us stupid. For example, let's say, we want to watch video something about our study or course. Firstly, if we open YouTube website, we can see the most promoted or watch videos. Absolutely, we think more than one time whether we want to watch these videos or not. I'm really sure that fifty percent probability, we want to watch. There also the related videos those come out after our first watch or at the side of window. So, do you think we lost our time just for these related video. Of course, as Ethan said that probably there are benefits from this "flock" that related to the main topic and we can further known about something. Otherwise, I think that is not necessary for us to know all the events until we forget what are we suppose to do right now.

As we discussed in class about free speech and freedom, the Internet or reading material like newspaper provide us to give any different stuffs and points of views of any topic. People are free to promote these videos and give another link related to them. Back to the homophily habit, this is not an Internet problem but this is a human problem. We really enjoy so much about the fantastic and exciting stuffs rather than get to find something very useful for us. I think that we should concern about these freedom of free speech even through blogging or other social stuffs and only take the positive values from these freedom.

Fourth Amendment

Lessig’s commentary on the Fourth Amendment, the protection from indiscriminate searches and general warrants, is very interesting. Lessig provides three different views on the value protected by the Fourth Amendment. The first value he comments on is the protection from the unjustified burden on an indiscriminate search. The second value is the protection of an offense to dignity caused by such a search. The third value is constraining the power of the state to regulate. Lessig argues that digital surveillance does not violate the first value, the protection from an unjustified burden, because the surveillance occurs without any burden at all to the person being watched unless significant evidence is found. The second value, however, is clearly violated. Lessig writes that dignity is not harmed if the state has justification to search before it does so. I believe that this is a slippery slope, and I would imagine that there are plenty of cases where searches have been “justified” by the state without really enough evidence to do so. A digital search, while most likely accompanied by good intentions, could be a serious invasion of privacy when performed on an innocent person. The third value, protection from the state, is a very complicated issue. Many people believe that the state has too much power, especially after legislation like the Patriot Act. The ability for the government to listen in on personal phone calls, monitor your internet and correspondence, and track people with GPS seems like a clear invasion of privacy. However, events like 9/11 make it impossible to keep the citizens of our nation safe without using such drastic measures. It seems cliché to say that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about,” but in many senses its true. On the other hand, even though I’m not plotting any terrorist plans on my phone calls and over my emails (or anywhere for that matter), the thought that someone could be monitoring me at any time is definitely not a good feeling.

Lack of Privacy

Privacy and the internet are two luxuries that seem to be in clear conflict. Our readings and discussions about privacy on the internet makes me think of a story from a few summers ago back in Florida. A man was on trial for the murder of his wife in my town and the case became a national news story. It was a very strange case because, according to the man, he and his wife had been on the beach when someone mugged them at gunpoint, killing his wife and shooting him in the shoulder. The prosecutors, however, argued that the man either killed his wife himself and then shot himself, or that he hired someone to shoot both of them. The case was especially confounded because the man had taken out a very large life insurance policy on his wife only months before the incident. This story relates to our discussions about privacy because the deciding factor in the case, the evidence that led to the man’s conviction, was that an investigation of his internet history revealed that he had been researching gunshot wounds before the shooting. The prosecutors were able to convince the jury that he had planned the shooting and had been researching ways to survive the gunshot wound that he sustained either from himself or from another party. Now, I am not arguing that the man wasn’t guilty, and if he is guilty, then he got what he deserves. However, it seems iffy that a man’s internet history and the things he researches are admissible in court and could be the deciding factor for whether he spends the rest of his life in jail or not. Looking at phone logs and email history are somewhat understandable, even though many people argue that they are still an invasion of privacy. In most cases, I don’t think that the websites someone browses or the tv shows they download should be public property.

Head Space

I felt particular concerned when listen to radio story about "Head Space" because there was a billboard emits highly focused sound that resonates within the skulls of passerby. Currently, this device is invading the right of privacy in individual's mind. The billboard is flanked by devices that look like speakers but which direct highly focused sound at unsuspected persons who trigger a sensor by walking by. The sound is sent at a fixed frequency that can only be heard by them because the transmitter uses the skull as a speaker and so the sound resonates inside the head. The first think when I listen to how this unique device work is very unbelievable and been effective enough to scare even the person.

Clive Thompson who is technology writer explained that it's part of a wave a new device design on every person mind. He continued explained that this technology is part of a new legal area, ethical area that can called "the civil right of the mind". So how really this device legal to person's right? I'm very concern that as we discussed the new modern technology like wiretapping will violate the privacy of mankind. These technological innovations are eroding sanctify of our mind because they would be functioned as read what's on our mind. In fact, we no longer private and it can literally say that our head is not safe just for our own thoughts. So, is unfair for us to forced get technologies that can put things inside our head, like this one?

We're forced to hear useless voices and we can't cover our ears by headphone or even some paper towels. The way this technology works is that it's making our body resonate and become the device for making noise. I really concerned about the fact that creators developing technology faster than we're updating our legal and ethical ways of thinking about that because up until now, we're been think that these new technologies not really hundred percent invading our private. Unfortunately, I think more powerful technology will be created and out of expected by us regarding how it affects our privacy. Does our legal tradition or our Constitutional tradition that we already discussed in class have any answer for these types of technology? I would like to know it soon while I really hope that the creators think about mankind privacy before create some modern technology devices.

Dalis Collins

The iPhone: The best new gadget or a government tracking device?
With all the classroom discussion of the abilities of electronics andcomputers to track movements, I hardly expected the iPhone to be partof the problem. However, right before my very eyes, the newest iPhonecommercial shows an application that allows you to track people. Thisincludes having access to their location and their activity. I don'tknow the name of the application; if it is free or you have topurchase it. I do not know if you can select the people who view you.I do know that on some basic level that feels wronge to me. Grantedthis information is only available if you choose to upload thatapplication, who is to say apple does not have complete access to thatinformation anyway if you have that application because of the GPSlocator in the phone. It may be hidden from view from other users whodo not have that application but who is to say Apple does not haveaccess.We learned in class and the reading that other companies have beenpetitioned by the government to give up information about theirclients. Cell phone companies keep records of all calls made by theircustomers. The government uses this information in profiling and courtcases. What would prevent them from using this information? Googlerefused to give information out about users who searched for illicitsites. This is ethically admirable, but it is definitely not the norm.These companies sell this information for everything from targetedadvertising to surveillance and even to private citizens. Quoting thereading, that is worse than Orwell's 1984.I for one will never get an iPhone. It may be the wave of the future,but it is certainly not a future I would support if this oneapplication is any indication.

"Permanent Record"

"Permanent Record" is a radio story that discusses the internet and how what we write online is, for the most part, permanent. The story mentions a variety of hot topics that address to what extent we have online privacy.
First, the show discusses Google. Google is a website that can be used to gather information for a report, look up pictures online, or, on another note, to snoop on someone's business. Let's face it, how many of us have typed in someone's name to Google just to see what comes up? I've done it before, and after listening to this article I actually Google searched myself, and found some new entries on me that I hadn't seen before. Though I'm really not too worried about being searched for online, I can see why some people may be bothered by the fact that they can be linked to various sites just by typing their name into Google and hitting "search."
Next, Nazanin Rafsanjani is interviewed. Nazanin wrote an email to iranian.com after 9/11 expressing her concerns and where her trust stood at that point in time. She was 19 at the time, and now many years later still is embarrassed and horrified that this article cannot be erased. Soon after she wrote the email, she wrote to the website asking to erase the entry that she had written. To Nazanin's surprise, the website wrote back that it could not be erased, that everything on that website was permanent. Now, a few years later, Nazanin finds it discomforting that she is unable to erase something personal that she wrote just because she submitted it online. This is true with many websites on the internet. Facebook and Myspace are great examples of websites in which people pour out there feelings and unknowingly write something traced to their name that is permanent. This is a reason why I personally try not to reveal too much of myself on my Facebook page. I know some people who blog often and enjoy writing all of their feelings down online for everyone to see, yet I don't think this is the smartest idea. What if, in the future, someone was trying to get a job with a big company, and this company searched for that person's name on Google and found a silly blog they had written on Facebook in which that person poured out all of their personal feelings and ideas, no matter how embarrassing they were?
Last of all, Emily Nussbaum is interviewed. Emily wrote an article about life online, and talks about key points on privacy and the internet. She discusses an idea of "chronicle asynchrony," that is, how someone can write something in 1990 and another person can respond to this same entry in 2003. The internet doesn't erase itself, no matter how old websites or blog entries may be. Some other bothersome ideas about the internet is that everything is linked, everything is searchable, and the concept of "invisible audiences"- that is, people can read stuff about you and you will never have any clue who read it.

The First Sale Doctrine

I'm interested when listen the radio story about “Seller Beware”. As summary for this story was, Universal Music Group filed suit in federal court against California resident Troy Augusto, who makes a living selling used CDs on eBay. Universal, however argued that in this case Universal Music Group still owns those CDs and Augusto isn't authorized to make some profit on sell them. Keep in mind that someone who owned some stuff, so he or she has a right to do anything on this stuff. This property called physical property.

Back to selling CDs case, is fair Augusto will get punishment caused by his action to selling used CDs that his own? I agree with the Fred von Lohmann who is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation because he defending Augusto. He connected this case to the other similar case involved a novel entitled The Castaways. In that case, Marcy's was selling the novel for 89 cents a copy after brought the novel from a wholesaler fair. Marcy's said, that's my business and the copyright owner doesn't have control of that. The First Sale Doctrine lawsuit applied causing both sellers in the above cases get punishment. This law applied not only to copyright items that are sold but to those that are given away.

According to Lessig said that he worried about nowadays code enable creator to have full power on their product. I not really satisfy with the enclosure nowadays because it strikes the right balance. Is unfair for us to pay the money to the creator or authors to get permission to make some copy on it? I think is unfair because the owner hand have change from creator to us. I agree with Fred, Universal here is able to trump the First Sale Doctrine by putting a little label on a product that say" For promotional use only, not for sale" or in the above case, a label says" This CD for home use only". As we discussed in class about the copyright ©, there is permission culture for us to use and this is a clear sign to understand.

Thoughts on Panopticon

Consumer panopticon is a very remarkable new technology that both Hull and Lessig refer to in their discussion on privacy. It is a system that collects data about you from where you go online that results in better-targeted advertising. Advantages to this include efficiency for gatherers of data (companies), the sales of things to you that you're actually interested in, and that computers can tell what you like and might actually buy rather than trying to sell you any random item. Disadvantages to this include manipulation, discrimination, and issues with the government. Lessig in particular is concerned with manipulation because they system knows better than you do what you want and when you wanted. Discrimination can be problematic because some people might be solicited different items based on how much money they make. Also, these companies could possibly turn over information to the government about who they monitor and sell to.
Overall, I don't think consumer panopticon is much of an issue or anything we should be too concerned about. I think we just need to be aware that it exists. It can be advantageous to us in some ways because we are being advertised to about items that studies show we may like. For example, I'm a big ebay shopper, and I really like how once I buy an item, ebay will display a list of 10 or more items that shoppers like me were also interested in. I usually browse this section and occasionally find something that I might potentially buy. It is helpful to have a system that monitors your activity online such as this. I can see where consumer panopticon might be troublesome for some people but I do not think it is something to dwell on. It mildly invades one's privacy for the sake of companies better targeting their buyers.

Copyrights

I found Lessig’s lecture on copyrights and intellectual property to be very interesting. I had never considered the ramifications of patents and copyrights for original works before watching this video, but I think that it is an important topic. Lessig speaks about the Copyright or “Progress” clause that was placed in the Constitution to “promote progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” I think that it makes complete sense that the Constitution provides protection for intellectual property because without incentive for people to invent, society would lack many of the luxuries that we now take for granted. In the modern world where it is so easy to copy and redistribute someone else’s work, legal protection for innovators seems like a necessity. The problem is that, because these innovators and their families can now make such enormous profits from their work, they become greedy. The example that Lessig gives about Sunny Bono’s copyright extension after his death shows how these granted monopolies have turned into ways for families to profit from work that is not theirs. On the other hand, maybe it is the right of Bono’s family to reap the rewards of his success. While it does seem a bit ridiculous that the protection of Bono’s work has been extended even after his death, his work was his own and he should have rights to it. A compromise solution could include a shorter term of full protection with an extended period of royalties if the innovator decides to make his or her work public. Offering an incentive such as increased royalties or some form of compensation for innovators to remove full protection from their work could allow society to benefit more fully from their work, while still giving innovators reason to continue producing.

Something New Destroying Something Old

I really liked the first article by Lessig that we read as an introduction to the topic of intellectual privacy. In Lessig #1, the author makes a statement to sum up his article and propose an idea. Lessig says that "while the Internet has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our government, pushed by big media to respond to this 'something new,' is destroying something very old." I interpreted this "something fantastic and new" to be the new innovations and ways of communication allowed for by the development of the internet, and this "something very old" to be the law and the Constitution established when our country was first founded. This phrase has a lot of truth and depth to it. It is very true that the internet is something fantastic and new. It has made waves in the way we communicate, research, share ideas, respond to others, and much more. It has changed the way we can view the world and has made many resources available to us at the tip of our fingertips. The Internet is a remarkable thing and should not be overlooked. Yet with all these pros comes a major con. Our privacy is definitely compromised with the Internet and the access to resources we have at hand. It is destroying something very old because our privacy laws written in the Constitution are violated. Unfortunately, we cannot figure out how to regulate the Internet or how much restriction we should put on it, because the laws we abide by were written many years ago and do not apply to modern day as well. The writers of the Constitution could not have dreamed of the technology we have and therefore have no input into how we can regulate it. So, what is the answer? Perhaps the best way for us to deal with this idea is to abide by the Constitution as best we can, and take the rest case by case. We must come up with a way to regulate privacy and allow for the sharing of ideas in a way that doesn't take away from the fundamental laws that we set long ago. This is not an easy task at hand. Lessig discusses various ideas and probable situations; they just must be put into action.

Talks Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law?

I interested with the presentation made by the Lessig on his talked about the stories and (re) creativity. The third stories his talked about how concern farmers toward the airplane that trespasser along the land. The old culture provides a law so that airplane cannot pass through the private land but this law has changed because it didn't make any sense how can people to travel by the airplane without passing along the private land. Is people must give some money so that he or she can move through the private owned?

Return to his talked about the creativity, he didn't really emphasize and explain how creativity is being strangled by the law. How can his concern about the read only (RO) really strangled the creativity. Currently, law have changed the culture from read-write (RW) culture refer to participate creation and re-creation the culture to read only (RO) culture means culture that create creativity consumed, but consumer not creator. I think he didn't fear lose about the (RO) culture because it protects the right of intellectual property of creators.

The clip that Lessig used referring to Christ is accidentally a very good argument against abandoning managed copyright laws on the internet. I personally not prefer so much in Lessig done showing the "Jesus Christ the Musical" because it against the feel of people. In addition, I doubt very much whether or not the authors of the Jesus Video ever took into account the feelings, religious views, or intent of the original writers of "I Will Survive". I really want some laws that prevent this unexpected clip although the authors have his or her right to show his creations.

If one re-mixes an original song with an original animation like clips that show George W. Bush then, the only originality was use of the merging element; likely copyrighted in its own capacity as a piece of computer software. In essence there is a significantly less amount of creativity given by the "re-mixer". I agree about Lessig saying that "today's children" are creative by way of re-mixing like the above example because this re-mixing will destroy the behavior of children. Don't we have some responsibility to help continue the age old tradition of music? What about the art of animation? Giving a wider creative license in this scenario may be justifiable, but what are the effects to be had? This type of view may one day shift the emphasis from a traditional music education or animation class to that of a sitting in front of a computer all day. I like Lessig's emphasize about Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) that much more democratize that at least provide the benefits for the future of children and open for business compared to capitalism that want the profit-making only in their business.

Dalis Collins

Latent Ambiguity: WTF mate? (3 pts)

Before this class, I had never heard of latent ambiguity. However, it is rather self explanatory: there is an unanticipated (latent) thing that is not clear (ambiguity). Ok, so that is not the best definition, but you get the point. It seems like the internet has brought a tidal wave of these to the forefront. Specifically in the area of copyright, the lines have been blurred. What is piracy? What is the responsibility of the government and law in policing this? What are appropriate measures to put in place to discourage it? What our users rights in relation to copyrighted material?
The framers of the constitution put a single line in to recognize this important concept: “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. “ While the need for this protection is obvious, unless I was paid to create something, I would put no effort in it because it is not profitable (I know, an evil word). Anytime before now there was a physical attachment to a work. A book had to be printed; a record had to be bought. However, internet has made it possible for unlimited consumption via downloads of works of music, literature, television, and movies. This possibility was unforeseen by the framers of the constitution.
My use of a downloaded file does not preclude someone else from using or enjoying the same thing. The physical characteristic of property has been removed from these objects because of their widespread availability on the internet. The question then is what did the framers intend for us to do about protecting intellectual property when it is totally removed from ability to create value by creating artificial scarcity. Many companies are producing software and asking for donations for their work. I know the post-it software I use does this. However, I hate to admit it, but I did not donate anything for the software. But if this software was not already free, I would not have bought it. My use of the software does not equal lost sales of which reduction is the ultimate goal of the company. While initially I believe there was too little control, I now believe many companies have overstepped their boundaries.

Dalis Collins

Contracts Vs. Code (3 pts.)
Lessig is definitely an innovative thinker. With the area of intellectual and property law literally changing before our eyes, it is necessary for new and creative ideas to be put forth to control the onslaught of piracy while maintaining an environment conducive to artistic thought. Currently computer code is being used to aggressively control who downloads (makes a copy) or even uses certain files. Music, television, and movies are aggressively controlled on the internet. Sites like Napster and my personal favorite www.surfthechannel.com are now being watched for infringement by major recording, television, and movie companies. While this is understandable, in certain situations this idea of intellectual property is taken too far and interferes with the fair use clause stifling the creative environment.
The fair use clause stipulates uses of original work without permission of the author while still under copyright protection in the spirit of research, criticism, and scholarship. I do a lot of online research for scholarly articles for many of my molecular biology classes. We are often discussing cutting edge research and material that is not accurately covered in any textbook. However, I am continually frustrated by the fact that I can find relevant articles but can only view the abstract. Because of stringent copyright laws and computer code that physically blocks me from viewing the article, my research is inhibited. I often cannot even find the articles when I go through the library website. It is extremely frustrating.
While I realize the internet opens up a whole new venue of distribution of a work with the ability to download files from anywhere on earth, I agree with Lessig that there needs to be a compromise. I like the idea of having a contract between the user and the site allowing viewing and sometimes even downloads on a contractual basis. Rather than setting up a fence with code completely restricting use, one can set up an agreement that is policed in part by users like Wikipedia that is mutually beneficial. A more widespread use is good publicity for the original author without diluting the value of the work.