"...we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it. We can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again. We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good?"
- Larry Lessig
This is a great talk about the free use of materials to make something new.
The crux of Mr Lessig's argument is that every time a "kid" remixes a song with a video they are committing a criminal act. By doing this the law is making their free expression criminal. He shows three great examples of this starting at 8:29 in the video.
He suggests that by using Creative Commons materials, we can avoid being criminals, and by doing this we can break the cartel of the RIAA and others. He uses the example of BMI causing the downfall of ASCAP. You can see this at 4:55 in the video. Here is the quote:
"Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror to rain down on the content industry was a terror created by this technology [Shows a picture of a broadcast radio antenna]. Broadcasting: a new way to spread content, and therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that would spread content. Now, at that time, the entity, the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights for most of the music that would be broadcast using these technologies was ASCAP. They had an exclusive license on the most popular content, and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate to the broadcasters who really was in charge. So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent, until the broadcasters finally got together and said, okay, enough of this. And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI. And BMI was much more democratic in the art that it would include within its repertoire, including African American music for the first time in the repertoire. But most important was that BMI took public domain works a
There's a lot to digest here, particularly if you want to read the whole report as well as the edited summary. I particularly liked the responses from JP Rangaswami:
"The quality of real-time information that becomes available will take the guesswork out of much of capacity planning and decision-making......The net effect will be to reduce waste everywhere: in physical flows and logistics, in the movement of people and goods; in logical flows and logistics, in the movement of ideas and information; decisions will be made faster and better, based on more accurate information; prior errors in assumption and planning will be winkled out more effectively."
And from Howard Rheingold:
"We will live in a world where many things won't work, and nobody will know how to fix them."
On a personal note, I can see there might be benefits with the IoT, particularly the use of sensors and actuators for monitoring and improving health, but will it put the final nail in 'privacy' and enable marketers to push their products and control my thoughts 24 x 7 through the pervasive use of wearable devices and biological interfaces with technology?
Reading time: 60 mins
"In this paper, we examine the evolution of the impact of non-elite journals. We attempt to answer two questions. First, what fraction of the top-cited articles are published in non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. Second, what fraction of the total citations are to non-elite journals and how has this changed over time. "
Merete Sanderhoff edited this collection of 18 articles on the topic of Openness in the cultural sector (predominantly museums). An excellent resource as museums struggle to retain image rights while at the same time fulfilling their both their educational and preservational missions.
"Compartir es servir a los demás"
Mucha de esta información sería desconocida si no es por el esfuerzo de una comunidad. Gracias por compartir.
Much of this information would be unknown if not for the efforts of a community. Thank you for sharing
Andy, I have read Merete's work and it is fascinating reading. I have been thinking about openness in museums for some time. When I have suggested to some museum professionals that they open up their collections for reuse, remixing and redistribution they have reacted with horror. Partly this is an attitude issue. They view themselves as the "custodians" of our cultural heritage and for that reason may be reluctant to see that heritage be used in ways that they have little control over.
I did write a long blog piece some time ago on which museums are allowing open access to their online collections. It's a bit out of date now as other museums have opened up their images since I wrote the piece - such as the Guggenheim and the British Library collection on Flickr. Still, I thought you and others might be interested:
http://teachtheweb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/using-museum-images-open-and-closed.html
This is really interesting! Thanks for sharing - I'll be reading this on my commute this week. The juxtaposition raised between safeguarding collections and allowing access (and possible re-use) is enlightening.
Caring for collection being shared is also a part of knowledge openness to access because all collections are precious for its timeless value , memoirs, and cultural heritage.
THERE was a time, not long ago, when access to the internet could be gained only through a computer. Now people can get to it using phones, tablets and some games...
THERE was a time, not long ago, when access to the internet could be gained only through a computer. Now people can get to it using phones, tablets and some games...
Dr Jane McGonigal (a professional game developer) talks about the time spent playing video games (which approximates to the span of human evolution), and that this time has to increase to make any major changes to the world.
I have selected this resource partially in relation to week 3's Clarke's lecture (and others), which talks about using our idle time to do something meaningful - participate in citizen science games, for example.
Dr McGonigal's talk very much illustrates this point - except that it talks about solving global issues through indirect games, e.g. a World Without Oil online game simulates a world in which you have to survive oil shortage. Creator's research shows, that people maintain the skills and habits they have taken up after playing this intense game, which include making better choices for our changing environment. The only difference here from actual citizen science games is that Dr McGonigal's games are fictional (rather than providing direct data / input for actual scientific research), however, they empower people to influence global change, which is the topic of the other lectures this week, especially Morozov's thoughts about the power of internet and connectiveness to create "revolutions".
Although Morozov has taken up a rather critical view, suggesting only those who want it, take the best from the Internet, Dr McGonigal's ideas might be what bridges the two - taking games, which are integral part of many people's lives, especially in the younger generation, and turning them into real "life schools" may help more people get the idea and the essential skills to "fix" their environments.
In all honesty, this is a video I would watch again and again, and recommend it to anyone who would listen (and that doesn't happen often for me).
Very interesting view about gaming in a digital world and gaming in a real world. How to balance both world is the challenge that we are all facing. One can see the advantage of computer gaming but also the disconnect with nature that over gaming can create.
A very interesting perspective. I took a course of Organisational Analysis offered in Coursera by Stanford University and, in the modules of "Learning Organisations" and "Organizational Culture" we reviewed this issue. Gamers usually develop different skills by playing online games as World of Warcraft, such as: communication, decision making, collaborative work, frustration tolerance and goals setting. This is because they practice, in an alternative world, many different real life situations. In addition, in clinical psychology are using virtual games to treat pacients and educate chilldrens. So, for that reasons, i think it is something really possible.
Gamification for learning - using game elements - sounds very promising. Prior to the internet, technology, there were board games or hands on projects - all with the intent to engage and interact with each other. So it is no surprise to me given the appropriate design/project that students can learn and solve real world problems. Letting students choose their persona and role also allows them to make their own future and take ownership for how they want to participate. Just like the original promise of multimedia training that was purported to replace the traditional classroom events and enable getting the "best" teacher recorded for all to have the same experience...I believe it was then thought that the learning experience needs o be "blended". Different techniques - online, face to face, etc.. This is not my field of expertise so these are just personal opinions. If the online game approach can be combined with face to face and tactile/outdoor activities, aka a blended approach - I think that might be very useful. I do also believe that design solutions should be encouraging win win situations to reinforce collaboration and the feeling that all can succeed. One question I might have is how do you measure success in learning?
Gaming promoters unfortunately for me have a commercial agenda and its always difficult to make that balance of pure learning and commercialization aspect
Text from 2011, still extremely timely, about privacy. The author, professor of Law, deconstructs the "nothing to hide" argument that says that we should not be scared to disclose private activities or information when we do nothing wrong.
Excellent, thanks for this. The "nothing to hide" argument also rests on the absurd premise that the authorities all have pure motives and will not abuse their power with this level of access to private information. To assume that all authorities, everywhere, all have noble intentions and pure motives is absurd as assuming that all human being are perfect....
Even though it is a few years old, the topic is still relevant--and maybe even more so in the wake of Snowden. Although most of us do truly believe we have 'nothing to hide', we are all naively unaware of just how easily something innocent can be twisted to nefarious means.
At the same time, if we are all being watched, are any of us really being watched? Something to ponder.
The big problem is the concept of privacy. In Brazilian law we have three kinds of personal information (data): public, private, and restricted. The difference between public and private information is matter of personal choice, in others words, each one may decide what is matter of the public or private information. The restricted informations are those that we are required by law to give the government, but the government cannot disclose without authorization. The privacy issue is respect for this choice between private and public data. When government or anybody disrespects this choice, we have a problem. I think in virtual ambience the users ignore those distinctions and make a big mess. If in one hand government and big players have been stealing our data, in other hand the users don't have necessary care about his own private information.
"Nothing to hide as at now" might be correct as a current status but not for the future. Human beings we always behave like we have control of our future. I may have nothing to hide as at now but in 10 years time when I ran for political office my past will surely halt me.
True, however our real name / our real identity, if used consistently across the variety of online audiences we engage with, permits Big Data to be aggregated, defining our activity as a distinct entity, giving it greater value in the analytics marketplace -- whether we have anything to hide or not ... What price do you wish to place on your digital self as an online product is the real question.
Makes a great point. I used to think that way, if I have nothing to hide I don't have to worry about what others find about me. But is true there is no need for everyone to have access to every single detail about you. And the point Kim and Philip made is really important, with more information available and more companies interested in making profit of it becomes more difficult to maintain control of who access your information and what it is used for.
The article raises two important points: (1) the right to know how information is being used and (2) the right to correct incorrect inferences being made from sometimes an incomplete information sets. I begin with the assumption that,despite how I take care to protect information, there are individuals and institutions that will find ways of dong so. So I want the right to appeal and set the record straight.
Thank you for sharing this. I can agree on that even though we have nothing to hide, it is matter of violating our right to keep it to our selves. However, I can say that it people's opinion for public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns may be different. The cameras may have good usage in order to solve or prevent crimes. It depends on how it is used I guess.
I like to differentiate 'privacy' which is a right every human should have, from 'privatisation' which is corporate mandates that suggest the right to hide or share information - mostly based in monetization. Technology has given us access to each other in ways never imagined, and until humanity reaches a higher order of compassion toward and consciousness with each other, this issue will eat at the very fabric of our society until our security obsessions destroy us.
Thanks for your sharing. The example of the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television in Britain makes me reflect on two aspects. Firstly, in my personal opinion, I think public-surveillance cameras provide citizens a better sense of security especially during nights. Secondly, the key point here is how the officials deal with the documentation of public-surveillance cameras, will citizens' privacy be exposed to public?
Privacy off course matters.It is right that if I have not done anything wrong then why should I hide it. On other hand we can not share our family relationship information with anyone.
An alternative opinion on openness, I agree.
Openness may evoke different feelings to people who have the "closed" experience. It may be also people's disbelief in the buzz-words and buzz-trends which come and go.
I agree with the danger of Openness. Not everything should have open access.
What happens with the pages that show people how to make guns or bombs? I think certain pages should not only be dismissed but also closed.
So true ibudule. Is 'openness' to become another catch-prase and trend as 'green', 'robust debate', 'politically correct' terms for almost anything? The deeper significance of the concept can be undermined by it becoming the last trendy issue which is applied to almost anything and everything.
So true, not everything should be open, but it is getting hard in our world, where everyone addicted to technologies. Technological dependence is becoming a huge issue. For example, leaked Snapchat images are all over the internet, and 50% of users are teen in the age of 13 to 17 years old. And nowadays, most of pics aren't images of dogs, cats or weekend dinner, they are images of naked people. If its open, then there is no privacy.
I actually remember reading this article last year. It's quite frightening how these new methods of production have the potential to do a great deal of harm. Personally, I believe such "openness" can lead to subversion but that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Morozov is right to bash "openwashing". But he is wrong in his Statement on "open-source". He writes "While Popper's openness is primarily about politics and a free flow of ideas, open-source is about cooperation, innovation and Efficiency" - well if we look at the core and origin of "open source", we have to look at "free Software" and its definition given by the "Inventor" of "free and open source Software", Richard Stallman. And we will see, that Stallman has a robust and transparent agenda of "free flow of ideas", very liberal, very Popper-like. So "free Software" is the wrong example for open-washing, because it came from "freedom" first. For more, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The argument will be with us for a very long time. I think this is based on the side of the fence that one is sitting on. It is just like a case of what came first a chicken or an egg. The fact is Open has place to occupy in our learning space. The jury is still out there.
Thanks for sharing this well presented write up. Big question put forth is are we really getting the outcomes expected from the open society. Open vs. quality is a big issue. At times restricting access helps a great deal.
It's common knowledge that the amount of online rich media consumption is increasing exponentially on an annual basis. But how much video traffic is projected over the next five years? And what does this growth really mean for global residential, business, and mobile subscribers and the service providers that support them?
I have used this infographic many times since I have found it. There are times in presentations or when trying to educate people on the size and scope of the internet that words do not do enough. The pictures and numbers and scaling provided by this infographic conveys the message quite well even if the numbers are losing their meaning because they are so large. The other important part of this infographic is that is is updated constantly. When I first found this link it was referring to the year 2014, as of this post it is now referencing 2015 and what will be available on line at that time.
An extremely powerful piece of research. I find it fascinating that the researchers were able to use US Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover the licensing costs. As a librarian, it is extremely frustrating to be bound by non-disclosure agreements when it comes to our subscriptions.
Universities have received a poor deal from the system of private, subscription-based access to knowledge production since the port WW2 commercialization of the scientific publishing industry. It is absurd that the university or research funder supplies the content (the research), pays for the authoring (the time of the researcher writing the article), and provides and pays for the time of peer reviewers and academic editors. In addition, it often pays page charges or formatting charges to publishers. It then cedes copyright and finally buys back its own research at prices that have escalated at four times the rate of inflation in the past decade and a half! Considering most of this research is conducted using public funds, it becomes a moral argument when public resources are used once again to purchase access to the outputs of this research.
The commercial model of disseminating research does not obey the rules of supply and demand. A relatively small number of 'core' journals occupy monopoly positions, in that university libraries have to subscribe to access their content, whatever the cost, because these journals have been established as 'must-have' resources. While the practice of 'bundling' offers the advantage of bulk pricing, it reduces room for choice, as bundles consume large chunks of library budgets, making it difficult to subscribe to smaller, individual titles. In addition, the inflexibility of indexing systems makes it difficult for new journals to establish themselves; thus compromising the potential for smaller niche subjects and newer interdisciplinary areas.
Thankfully the global inequalities engendered by the commercialization of scholarly publishing are being challenged by open access.
Good crowd-funding project that tries to help solve the digital divide problem by providing infrastructure to those who lack the money to purchase a computer. In addition to providing the physical infrastructure of the computer to allow those without one to catch up to society, perhaps another solution to conquer the digital divide is to educate those who have just received computers how to use the internet to look for information, consume, produce and distribute the information.
In this article, Newman states that smartphones are prominent on campus nowadays. According to the survey that he has mentioned in the article, there are 59% of Tam students own smartphones; and 61% of them think that smartphones do waste their time even though there are 81% of them think that smartphones have made their life easier. Thus is, although most of the smartphone users believe that smartphones do bring them lots of convenience in life, most of them also agrees that smartphone are wasting their time in life especially in users always spend too much time on the smartphone apps and some of them think that smartphones have put a hindrance to human communication as it mentions in the article that "smartphones put a wall between people and the emotions they have". I feel like using smartphone is kinda of a trend in university right now. People can use their phone to search, download and read articles through the phone. Finding a balance with yourself and technoloy is important, however finding a balance for the publisher and technology is also important as knowledge has been quite open access to people on the internet right now.
Note: We ve updated this post multiple times with additional material. Look for the updates below. A story on the German publishing industry web site boersenblatt.net (in German) reports that Netherlands-based Swets (Swets & Zeitlinger Group B.V.) is insolvent and has filed for bankruptcy. We ve reached out the company for comment.
From the site: "Digital Storytelling (also affectionately known as ds106) is an open, online course that happens at various times throughout the year at the University of Mary Washington... but you can join in whenever you like and leave whenever you need."
I took part in the open ds106 course for a while. I am impressed that it keeps going and morphing over time. The dedication to openness - both the the tools used and the content being produced by the participants - is also impressive.
Concepts taught in this course included remix, reuse and re-share are core to the concepts of OER and open knowledge.
Google has revealed a project underway at the called The Physical Web to provide "interaction on demand" so that people can walk up and use any smart devices without the need for intervening mobile apps. This would make it possible for users to simply walk up to a bus stop and receive the time until the next arriving bus, without any additional software needed.
An accepted open standard is probably some years away, but the promise of an Internet of Things that doesn't require a centralised software hub is appealing, since it democratises control over the system.
"Where once self publishing was viewed as the option of last resort - the option for failed writers and an option marked by stigma and shame - self publishing is increasingly viewed as the option of first choice for many writers. Over the next couple years I think we'll reach a point where more first-time writers aspire to indie-publish than traditionally publish. "