Authentic Tech

From the blog of Holly Loganbill:
http://web.me.com/hloganbill/Hollys_Place/Blog/Entries/2011/5/3_WK_1_Reading...Copyright_Issues.html#

Copyright has been a very hot topic at school this year. I’ve been able to share the requirements with our teachers, who were very surprised to see some of the limits. For instance, they were distressed to learn that having students draw or write to a particular piece of music is an infringement, and “fair use” goes just so far. I’ve had to introduce my students to Wikimedia Commons for their images rather than Google Images, and they’re becoming pretty savvy about reading the copyright statements. It has pointed up a need to do more instruction on paraphrasing and giving credit for any new information gleaned from reading, even if the student feels they now know it themselves. We’re making progress, but it’s going to take time to get everyone on board. Awareness is an important first step.

“It’s great fun to cut stuff up” wraps up the Good Copy Bad Copy video. That makes it sound like something creative and cute from kindergarten. I think all the remixing goes right along with hacking and identity theft and all other outgrowths of digital technology. For as many as use it creatively and responsibly, there will be others finding a way to subvert it and capitalize on it.

I don’t listen to contemporary music and had no idea this remixing was such a huge business. When I was in China about 10 years ago, the big thing was to go to the black market for pirated movies and music. You could buy really huge films like Titanic for the equivalent of $.25 US. The same was true of buying the Microsoft Office Suite. Millions of dollars changed hands – they loved getting US money. That’s a drop in the bucket compared with what’s being made today on pirated/remixed goods. How will the originators of this music and other creative art ever be able to earn a living? I think it will completely redefine the world of music and creative expression, and I have no idea what that could look like.

This is a lot to think about. My takeaway from this series of videos is threefold. First, we need fair use to be able to preserve history. As the “Eyes on the Prize” example attests, it’s all too easy for a significant historical event to disappear or be rendered private property. Our library has a copy of Eyes on the Prize, and I’m wondering if we’re still allowed to show it.
Second, we need to do a better job of informing teachers about the real legal limits of fair use. Just in thinking about all of the projects I’ve seen created in the last three years at my school, there have to have been hundreds of copyright infractions. I agree that it’s a balancing act between someone’s right to create vs. another’s right to protect what they’ve created.

Third, the codes of best practices can certainly help, but they need to be uniform across all disciplines and potential uses.

Many folks at school point to the fact that no one is going to be checking on what happened in a 7th grade creative writing session when the instructor played the full album of Beatles music for inspiration. They also see no harm in using Google Images for all of their students’ illustration needs.
This balancing act is just as one gentleman described it, it’s all about First Amendment rights and giving reasonable protection to the original creators while allowing others to create new material from old. That leaves a great deal up to debate, as the criteria are a bit general. It sounds like that can work in the favor of either side, depending on whose attorney or judge is defending, accusing, or judging a specific instance of testing fair use.

When Lessing talks about this age of prohibitions and the corrupting of our youth by making them go underground as they “live life against the law”, it really points up what’s wrong with the prohibitions at my school in regard to social networking, digital devices, and email for students. Our administration has made it forbidden fruit, which is always enticing to any tween or teen. My question would be, if it doesn’t make someone a fortune, can it survive? Creative Commons is a great concept and collaboration, but how will it survive against the monstrous financial forces in our society? As Lessing pointed out, artist choice is the key to equal rights for new technologies.




From the blog of Bruce Neubauer:
http://brucemonth11blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-number-1-copyright-laws.html

Week 1 Blog Number 1---Copyright Laws, or Are We Becoming Addicted to Mediocrity?

I am a fanatical user of http://creativecommons.org/ , but even there one must be cautious. Just because an image is available does not mean it is usable. Often one must check with the image's owner to view the CC license agreement. My experience with CC is that usually the owner allows for free usage (including image manipulation) as long as you do several things: 1) Give proper attribution, 2) Give proper tittle, and 3) Make some kind of statement in which the image's owner is viewed as endorsing the content of your production.

I also like to use old film and video footage. It is fun to view and adds a nice creative bump to any video project. Older black and white footage is especially cool to use in more modern pieces. Its retro look even adds a bit of humor. I have used stock footage this way in several FSO projects. A great place to locate stock footage is at Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ This site provides a vast array of older films that are bow in the category of public domain. Public domain is great stuff because there is absolutely no worries whatsoever about any ownership infringements.

I did like the 10 copyright myths. I always used to laugh when someone would tell me, "But I'm not selling it." I could never convince these people that the issue was never about sale; it was about unauthorized duplication of any kind.

As to the content of the film, Good Copy, Bad Copy. I'm not sure where my thinking is on this. I have never really considered it before. I tend to believe someone's property is someone's property, regardless whether it is physical or intellectual or creative. I have strong feelings about people being overly subjective about someone else's possessions. I understand the need for the free exchange of ideas. But to freely exchange a creative piece that is the direct product of someone else's s efforts and talent? Well, I just don't know. This feels like a slippery slope to me. I have the impression we are trying to over-intellectualize what is at the core a moral issue. Maybe that's why it feels slippery to me. It feels like a lot of people seeking for a way to justify a presupposition.

As the one executive stated, "You need copyright law as an incentive for people to create." Also, I have read that the era of the 'professional' musician is on the wane. The advent of digital technology and the Internet have completely changed how musicians produce and distribute their creations. We may be seeing a major shift in how music is consumed by its listeners. According to the film this is already the model in Brazil. Still, I have a hard time calling someone 'creative' when all they are doing is mashing up pre-existing pieces and parts from someone else's talent. It's ending up with a product, but with little of the sweat and musing of a real artist. Again, this feels like a slippery slope of some kind, like we're willing to settle for a certain amount of creative blandness; like we're becoming addicted to mediocrity.

I have used footage from other films and videos in my FSO projects. So I am also a remixer of sorts. But I certainly would not call my projects creative or artistic. I just reassembled a few odds and ends to use toward an end.

But I have to hear and read more before I can think intelligently about the issue.