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.