HU2642 post #12 -- short stack
Reading: "Copyright and Fair Use" (1999), by Megan J. Forness
This seems like a fairly straightforward discussion of copyright, although it's far from thorough. I did a report in high school about a year after this was done on the topic of copyrighting. This would have been a really good source for that, especially since it's likely that all eleven of the links provided at the bottom would still have worked, instead of only two as is the case today.
Reading: "The Ethics of Web 2.0: YouTube vs. Flickr, Revver, Eyespot, blip.tv, and even Google" (2006), by Lawrence Lessig
This is about sharing content, particularly user-generated content, online. It doesn't deal expressly with copyright, but it singles out YouTube among several other content sharing sites because it is unfriendly about allowing content to be downloaded. This is presented as a drawback of YouTube ("fake sharing"), but I think this feature is an important obstacle in the effort to prevent completely unabated trafficking of protected works. Sure, you can still get the material off of YouTube, but at least in doing it, you have to be aware that, in deliberately going around that roadblock, you're doing something kind of underhanded.
Content: "Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity" (2007), video of presentation given by Lessig
This ties the two parts together. I liked this presentation, partly because it was well organized and well coodinated with the visuals, but also because it appeals to my extreme middle-of-the-road mentality. Lessig rejects both extremes: the desire to suppress the use of any copyrighted content without regard to fair use considerations AND what he calls "copyright abolitionism" whereby authors' rights would be done away with and everything would become free to use.
Instead, he proposes a balance, where creators choose to express that their work is free to use for non-commercial purposes -- which would render any question about YouTube mashups moot. As part of that balance, businesses would enable and foster an attitude where content that is more free (yet short of completely free) is less objectionable.
Content: "Open Source, Open Culture" (2010), video interview with DJ Spooky
Here we have a short interview with a DJ and recording artist who leans more toward allowing more sharing in "this rip, mix, burn kind of scenario" where today's youth -- Prensky's Digital Natives -- reside. Even regarding his own work, he sees the recognition generated by sharing as more than offsetting the loss of potential revenue.
This seems like a fairly straightforward discussion of copyright, although it's far from thorough. I did a report in high school about a year after this was done on the topic of copyrighting. This would have been a really good source for that, especially since it's likely that all eleven of the links provided at the bottom would still have worked, instead of only two as is the case today.
Reading: "The Ethics of Web 2.0: YouTube vs. Flickr, Revver, Eyespot, blip.tv, and even Google" (2006), by Lawrence Lessig
This is about sharing content, particularly user-generated content, online. It doesn't deal expressly with copyright, but it singles out YouTube among several other content sharing sites because it is unfriendly about allowing content to be downloaded. This is presented as a drawback of YouTube ("fake sharing"), but I think this feature is an important obstacle in the effort to prevent completely unabated trafficking of protected works. Sure, you can still get the material off of YouTube, but at least in doing it, you have to be aware that, in deliberately going around that roadblock, you're doing something kind of underhanded.
Content: "Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity" (2007), video of presentation given by Lessig
This ties the two parts together. I liked this presentation, partly because it was well organized and well coodinated with the visuals, but also because it appeals to my extreme middle-of-the-road mentality. Lessig rejects both extremes: the desire to suppress the use of any copyrighted content without regard to fair use considerations AND what he calls "copyright abolitionism" whereby authors' rights would be done away with and everything would become free to use.
Instead, he proposes a balance, where creators choose to express that their work is free to use for non-commercial purposes -- which would render any question about YouTube mashups moot. As part of that balance, businesses would enable and foster an attitude where content that is more free (yet short of completely free) is less objectionable.
Content: "Open Source, Open Culture" (2010), video interview with DJ Spooky
Here we have a short interview with a DJ and recording artist who leans more toward allowing more sharing in "this rip, mix, burn kind of scenario" where today's youth -- Prensky's Digital Natives -- reside. Even regarding his own work, he sees the recognition generated by sharing as more than offsetting the loss of potential revenue.