"A Fair(y) Use Tale"
Another contribution to Copyright
"Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University created this humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms."
Watch the video: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Copyright and Alternatives
History of copyright law
Free Culture
Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
History of copyright law
Free Culture
Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
Copyright and Alternatives
History of copyright law I Free Culture I Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
History of copyright law I Free Culture I Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
Copyright and Alternatives
History of copyright law I Free Culture I Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
History of copyright law I Free Culture I Licensing and Creative Commons
The development of the copyright law started in the 18th century. At first copyright was a limited term of 14 years, then became a copyright forever and at the end of the 18th c. the situation was an unregulated creativity, free derivatives and 14 years copyright. Gradually these conditions changed to a controlled copyright system. Up to the present many creations are published, more and more is copied, be it written documents or other items as e.g. photographs or 3D objects.
Todays "controlled" situation could be described as having copyright wars, struggling with unproducible rules, having a manner of competitive behaviour, accepting the no fair use and watching wrong people having success on creators expends.
Lawrence Lessig is looking forward to clearify the copyright situation and said that we should have a transparent creativity, free sharing and "create like it's 1790". His examination with copyright has the conclusions:
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past
2. The past always tries to controll the creativity that builds on it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society
The copyright, as it was defined, exists not anymore because the real differentiation between constitutional law and exploitation right is lost.
The relation between creator & producer/seller and producer/seller & user is mistaken. The producer/seller pays a sum of money to the creator which is mostly under the value of the work. After that the production company duplicate e.g. digital music samples for almost no costs and sell it the client. The client pays for the exploitation right and not for the real value of the subject. Nowadays, in the age of a fast developing technology, the company becomes scared that they will loose their clients because duplication becomes easier than ever. But I would say that now the same happens to them (producer/seller) as they've done to the creators. Therefore they try to find solutions to stop this "negative" development by controlling the users' rights. The user is extradited by the producer/seller (no freedom) but not for a long time anymore. The producer/seller is an obstacle for the creator and the user. In future both won't need this kind of "big middleman" anymore - instead of there could be a "little middleman" which is just a real agent and just "hand over" the creation for the creators advantage.
Besides this system of Copyright there is been developing a young system as good alternative: Creative commons. The user is allowed to copy or copy and advance something with the duty to name the author of the original.
(All kind of systems, as e.g. OOE and the people being dependent on their own ambition and active participation, will maybe change the world of money to a life with less cashflow (as in earlier times (bartering))).
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Philosophical Background behind the open educational resource movement
Enlightenment
The Age of Enlightement is a movement arguing that the whole population should be educated unlike the opinion of the church.
Science and "standing on the shoulders of giants"
This principle is that scientific papers are allowed to refer to other scientific papers. It says that nobody must achieve every knowledge by own studies although it already exists; E.g. a mathematician is permitted to see the existing mathematics as given and he has not to derive it by himself. The consequence of this principle is that the growth of knowledge can be developed in a faster way.
Library Movement: Origins of the public library as a social institution
The basic idea for the institution "library", a system to share books and other stuff, comes from the United States; - examples for founders are Benjamin Franklin or Andrew Carnegie.
Free Adult Education: Popular Education and Folk High School
The focus is on self-development of adults; it is subject to conditions of the Age of Enlightement. The aim is to achieve consciousness and ability to act e.g. in the area of politics or pedagogy. A possibility for free adult education are the institutions called Folk High Schools founded by Dane Grundtvig; they offer a broad field of study with no grant academic degrees.
Free Software Movement
The question is which kind of free is meant. Therefore an explanation with two proverbs:
(1) "Free as in free beer" and (2) "Free as in free speech". The "free" of Free Software is the same as the second proverb. You are allowed to listen and retell what you've heard. (The first "free"-proverb would be for freeware.) It works that one writes a program and not only refers the program language to others but also passes a readable and modifiable source code on others. The effect of open source is that other interested people can develope further although the author does not exist anymore. Therefore a negative point of closed source is that the user is at the companie's mercy because you cannot know if the company acts iniquitous or goes bankrupt.
> The conclusion of all issues about enlightenment, practice of science, library movement, free adult education, folk high school and free software movement is that knowledge is not only available for the rich and paying elite but for all.
Enlightenment
The Age of Enlightement is a movement arguing that the whole population should be educated unlike the opinion of the church.
Science and "standing on the shoulders of giants"
This principle is that scientific papers are allowed to refer to other scientific papers. It says that nobody must achieve every knowledge by own studies although it already exists; E.g. a mathematician is permitted to see the existing mathematics as given and he has not to derive it by himself. The consequence of this principle is that the growth of knowledge can be developed in a faster way.
Library Movement: Origins of the public library as a social institution
The basic idea for the institution "library", a system to share books and other stuff, comes from the United States; - examples for founders are Benjamin Franklin or Andrew Carnegie.
Free Adult Education: Popular Education and Folk High School
The focus is on self-development of adults; it is subject to conditions of the Age of Enlightement. The aim is to achieve consciousness and ability to act e.g. in the area of politics or pedagogy. A possibility for free adult education are the institutions called Folk High Schools founded by Dane Grundtvig; they offer a broad field of study with no grant academic degrees.
Free Software Movement
The question is which kind of free is meant. Therefore an explanation with two proverbs:
(1) "Free as in free beer" and (2) "Free as in free speech". The "free" of Free Software is the same as the second proverb. You are allowed to listen and retell what you've heard. (The first "free"-proverb would be for freeware.) It works that one writes a program and not only refers the program language to others but also passes a readable and modifiable source code on others. The effect of open source is that other interested people can develope further although the author does not exist anymore. Therefore a negative point of closed source is that the user is at the companie's mercy because you cannot know if the company acts iniquitous or goes bankrupt.
> The conclusion of all issues about enlightenment, practice of science, library movement, free adult education, folk high school and free software movement is that knowledge is not only available for the rich and paying elite but for all.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Working with Wikiversity - the experience
I had a look at both ooe programs, LeMill and Wikiversity, before I registered in Wikiversity. Both have a well arranged structure. Nevertheless I think it's very important how the page looks like. In this point the page wikiversity adresses me at first. LeMill looks 'nice' and has some good menu bar but anyway I feel lost (font, font size, line pitch are too big > the content and its structure seem unproportional).
Wikiversity turns out to be easy and handy to use. I sometimes just wondered about unfitting headlines or unlogical orders; but all things take their time - Wikiversity is still in its initial stage. Further I have the feeling that some people are missing the point. As I understood: Wikipedia gives the information (theory) and Wikiversity is for the practical part. In Wikiversity there are texts about e.g. history which are out of place in my opinion; the history can be looked up in Wikipedia. But during the growth Wikiversity will probably get a more clear seperation to wikipedia.
I had a look at both ooe programs, LeMill and Wikiversity, before I registered in Wikiversity. Both have a well arranged structure. Nevertheless I think it's very important how the page looks like. In this point the page wikiversity adresses me at first. LeMill looks 'nice' and has some good menu bar but anyway I feel lost (font, font size, line pitch are too big > the content and its structure seem unproportional).
Wikiversity turns out to be easy and handy to use. I sometimes just wondered about unfitting headlines or unlogical orders; but all things take their time - Wikiversity is still in its initial stage. Further I have the feeling that some people are missing the point. As I understood: Wikipedia gives the information (theory) and Wikiversity is for the practical part. In Wikiversity there are texts about e.g. history which are out of place in my opinion; the history can be looked up in Wikipedia. But during the growth Wikiversity will probably get a more clear seperation to wikipedia.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
To: Article “Open Educational Resources: What they are and why do they matter” by Ilkka Tuomi
OER will be a global impact in sharing, learning and developing ideas of people coming from developing countries or high-income countries. The spread and developement of knowledge is fast and will change the whole world systems. In the run-up to it we should consider the concept.
The fact of openess in open educational resources:
The developement of open science can be achieved by social benefits by reanalysing and adding to existing knowledge. It is a fair progress. Besides the social open-aspect there is just the economic problem: to get a payment for their achievement.
For the realisation of OER it is needed to transform the systems of the institutions, of learning, practising, teaching. It will be integrated into the educational practice system of nowadays and there will be the transformation to new practices through new approaches in managing education and learning in a qualitatively way.
The future learing environments will change from national systems to global knowledge networks. New technologies as simulations, games, platforms, audio and video will give the possibility to give and get informations. Therefore creation and learning management systems will be redesigned to form an optimal application for the users. The usage will be optimal for young and old people. Every person of every age will be able to use OER. It is just a question of information and communication technologies. The speed of change will be enourmous; as example there are the existing systems of Wikipedia, Skype or YouTube.
The technical possibilities will be the basis and the reason for the level of speed of the developemnt of knowledge.
As we see the learning will be increasingly networked. To be creative and innovative are the keywords. The students will construct the knowledge and the teachers handle and organise the education and learning.
Open source is called open because of the possibility of “copy, modify and redistribute”. No paying or fees are demanded. The interesting fact of open source for educators is described in fast developement, low costs (just for computer and network costs; but no fees or contracts), high quality outputs and the potential of open source which can be adjusted specifically.
So the openeness in open source means in a social point of view that the people have the freedom to use, contribute and share knowledge. In a technical point of view technical systems are mostly created in a constructive character. System designers must find components for interfaces and protocols that fit into the system. An essential facilitation is the standardisation which helps technicians to develop (e.g. ISO, RFC).
It is important that indepently developed systems match. A certain part stays in the “black box” and is not modifyable but the open part, interfaces and protocols, makes it possible to solve the puzzle.
Open source systems in this technical realm offer “white, transparent and open boxes” which means that the openess is defined in partial openess and full openess.
-I hope that all of the users respect the act of developement and none of the them play on the honest achievements.
OER will be a global impact in sharing, learning and developing ideas of people coming from developing countries or high-income countries. The spread and developement of knowledge is fast and will change the whole world systems. In the run-up to it we should consider the concept.
The fact of openess in open educational resources:
The developement of open science can be achieved by social benefits by reanalysing and adding to existing knowledge. It is a fair progress. Besides the social open-aspect there is just the economic problem: to get a payment for their achievement.
For the realisation of OER it is needed to transform the systems of the institutions, of learning, practising, teaching. It will be integrated into the educational practice system of nowadays and there will be the transformation to new practices through new approaches in managing education and learning in a qualitatively way.
The future learing environments will change from national systems to global knowledge networks. New technologies as simulations, games, platforms, audio and video will give the possibility to give and get informations. Therefore creation and learning management systems will be redesigned to form an optimal application for the users. The usage will be optimal for young and old people. Every person of every age will be able to use OER. It is just a question of information and communication technologies. The speed of change will be enourmous; as example there are the existing systems of Wikipedia, Skype or YouTube.
The technical possibilities will be the basis and the reason for the level of speed of the developemnt of knowledge.
As we see the learning will be increasingly networked. To be creative and innovative are the keywords. The students will construct the knowledge and the teachers handle and organise the education and learning.
Open source is called open because of the possibility of “copy, modify and redistribute”. No paying or fees are demanded. The interesting fact of open source for educators is described in fast developement, low costs (just for computer and network costs; but no fees or contracts), high quality outputs and the potential of open source which can be adjusted specifically.
So the openeness in open source means in a social point of view that the people have the freedom to use, contribute and share knowledge. In a technical point of view technical systems are mostly created in a constructive character. System designers must find components for interfaces and protocols that fit into the system. An essential facilitation is the standardisation which helps technicians to develop (e.g. ISO, RFC).
It is important that indepently developed systems match. A certain part stays in the “black box” and is not modifyable but the open part, interfaces and protocols, makes it possible to solve the puzzle.
Open source systems in this technical realm offer “white, transparent and open boxes” which means that the openess is defined in partial openess and full openess.
-I hope that all of the users respect the act of developement and none of the them play on the honest achievements.
Comments to open education projects.
The Open university (UK) Open Content Initiative is a new kind of institution that offers an open and distance learning. The participants are working from all over UK. OER makes this possible and also Rice Connexions, MIT OpenCourseWare, LeMill.net and Wikiversity. The developement of this several systems is exciting. I’m afraid that the dependence on computers won’t stop. Far from it! I am curious how the whole system will run when the whole world is active and dedicated. An optimal possibility for working, “recycling” and “storing” the knowledge will be needed.
The Open university (UK) Open Content Initiative is a new kind of institution that offers an open and distance learning. The participants are working from all over UK. OER makes this possible and also Rice Connexions, MIT OpenCourseWare, LeMill.net and Wikiversity. The developement of this several systems is exciting. I’m afraid that the dependence on computers won’t stop. Far from it! I am curious how the whole system will run when the whole world is active and dedicated. An optimal possibility for working, “recycling” and “storing” the knowledge will be needed.
Week 1
About me.
I’m susanne from Austria and studying here at taik as an exchange student.
I’m participating in Open Online Educational Course because I think the developement of a global open education is a very important and worldshaking movement which should be supported by own active examination. In the run-up to this, the process which already started and never will end, all users need information to make a good and not only fast developement of knowledge possible. The whole world should work together and the impact will be great.
I’m susanne from Austria and studying here at taik as an exchange student.
I’m participating in Open Online Educational Course because I think the developement of a global open education is a very important and worldshaking movement which should be supported by own active examination. In the run-up to this, the process which already started and never will end, all users need information to make a good and not only fast developement of knowledge possible. The whole world should work together and the impact will be great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)