Précis #5

The Tyranny of Copyright?

The articles begins by telling the story of a few Sawrthmore College students, who obtained roughly 15,000 e-mails/memos from Diebold Election Systems. DES is the largest maker of electronic voting machines in the USA. The messages talked about flaws in the software and warnings that the network could be easily hacked into. The students decided this information shouldn't be kept from the public, especially after the questionable 2000 election, so they decided to post the newly obtained information on their websites. Little did they know they were violating the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act which are laws that protect copyrighted material on the Web. So it is no surprise that shortly after the students posted the information, Diebold sent letters to Sawrthmore accusing their students of copyright infringement, and demanded the information be taken off their sites, which were of course, hosted by the server of the college. Naturally Swarthmore complied, but it is because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that the student's speech could be silenced with out the benefit of lawsuits, hearings, judges, etc. The students stayed persistent and eventually Diebold agreed not to sue, and the students were able to put the information back on their sites. Stories like this are why people like Siva Vaidhyanathan call a "copyright horror story."

The most publicized of these horror stories came from the Recording Industry Association of America when they began suing people for downloading music off the Internet and violating copyright laws. The worst part? Some of the settlements, for thousands of dollars, came from defendants as young as 12!

It was not that long ago that "information wanted to be free." Yet some say due to implications, stricter rules need to be created. "Paracopyright" prohibits duplication of copyrighted material and in some cases prevents people from obtaining the material in the first place.

"Copy Left," a free culture movement is slowly taking shape, composed of lawyers, scholars, and activists devoted to preserving our democratic freedoms. They believe a creation should go into the public domain, or what they call the "Cultural Commons," which is a "stockpile of ideas" where most of the USA's literature and music would reside and be accessible by anyone, with out having to get permission or pay any kind of fee.

While these seem like valid ideas, Copy Left hasn't gotten a lot of recognition and worries that if they cannot get the American public to realize what is happening soon, they will be stuck in the consequences of the laws being passed right now. Even Thomas Jefferson considered copyright a bad thing; he preferred giving just enough information to invoke creation, and then allowing ideas to "flow freely as nature intended."

The opponents of Copy Left fight a war based on a legal doctrine and view the culture operating on ownership of everything and anything of value. But Copy Left is sure that the entertainment industry could operate successfully by evolving with the Internet Age, while still compensating artists properly. William Fisher spent 3 years creating an alternative compensation system. The modified system calls for all information online to be registered and then the creators are paid based on how frequently their information is accessed. Fisher is convinced if his ideas do get used it could be one of the best things to happen to the Cultural Commons; the creators get paid and everybody has access to everything. Unfortunately, the most likely place we will see his ideas put to work anytime soon is in countries like Croatia or Brazil- 2nd world countries that aren't as developed as the USA, and are more open to new ideas and change. Fisher speculates that in the USA his ideas probably won't start to gain mass-interest until our current systems fail. The future of Copy Left remains to be seen.

Although this article was long and a little hard to read, it communicates great ideas. I think the people of Copy Left are right on point when it comes to their ideas of free information- everybody should have the right to gain knowledge. Fisher's new system of compensation is a wonderful idea in my eyes. However, just like global warming and so many other pressing issues, it takes America a long time to open their eyes to reality.

Précis #4

Cyberbullying.

In the article about cyber security by Mindi McDowell, the growing problems of cyberbullying is discussed. She starts by defining cyberbullying; the fairly recent use of technology to harass somebody. Traditionally, bullies relied on physical force and intimidation. Prank phone calls and letts sent through the mail were and still are used. However, with amazing technologic advances comes some not-so-great technologic bullying. Cyberbullying can occur through email, instant messenger, web pages, and digital photos. Computers aren't the only vice either- cell phones and PDA's being used too, and while cyberbullying can affect anyone, teens and young adults seem to be the most common victims.

The next sections of the article talks about why cyberbullying has becme such a problem. The internet makes bullying more appealing to a "bully" because it is harder to trace, and there is no personal contact. What's even more terrible, is that due to the power and speed to the Web, malicious pictures can be posted and emails can be sent quickly to a mass audience, thus causing even more damage to the victim than traditional bullying. There is also a speculation that cyberbullying leads to violent behavior later i life, although this has not been researched enough to make any conclusions.

Mindi closes the article by offering some advice for protecting yourself and people you know.

1. BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU POST PERSONAL INFO!
this is a prevention tip. if you're careful to begin with,
you are much less likely to become a victim.

IF YOU DO BECOME A VICTIM..

2. Avoid responding in anger. Try ignoring or changing your email adress.
3. DOCUMENT. Keep track of the incidents, print them out if you can.
4. REPORT. To law officials, FBI, or if applicable school officials.

Précis #3

Google as "Big Brother."

The article begins by declaring that there are four major competitors in the "search engine world." One of the four, Yahoo said, "Peace out!" in February of 2004 when they reportedly dropped Google from their "belt" of other search engines including Overture, Alltheweb, AltaVista, and Inktomi. However, after one year Yahoo has shown that they are pretty much on track with Google when it comes to results. Also, the article claims that there is only a 20% overlap when it comes to the results of Google and Yahoo, after the same search.

The next part of the article talks about Microsoft and their recent effort to develop a search engine of their own, after being stuck in between Yahoo's Inktomi and the advertising in Overture. The article speculates that Microsoft's search engine may be able to overthrow the other powerhouses if they "do deep crawls" and keep their user interface "clean." All that being said, we are left with Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and Teoma, also known as AskJeeves. The article says to keep an eye out for AskJeeves as they are looking into expanding their crawl.

Now, to the juicy stuff.

Indisputably, Google is the "alpha dog." They account for 75% of external referrals for most of the websites of the net. So why try to out-do the top dog? The author of the article reports that if we are lucky, one of the other engines from the "major four" will start to offer competition to Google. But there are many different disputes.

One is a battle of advertising space and money. Google used to be ad-free but today up to half of each screen belongs to advertisements. It seems everyone is trying to jump on the "Google Train." It's also a battle of who will have the most influence when it comes to the huge amounts of user data collected by Google. Usually these privacy disputes revolve around consumer protection, but since September 11, 2001 there is a new "bad guy" to fight against-- the government. This "privacy struggle" means that Google will need to figure out how they will treat the data they collect.

Another battle being fought is the PageRank problem between Google and Google Watch. This is due to Google ranking the popularity of web pages before the quality of them. The article starts to wind down by saying, "We don't think Google is evil." Phew. The article believes Google is a fork in the road, and decisions need to be made.

As a student, I constantly use the World Wide Web for miscellaneous searches. Although I am now reluctant to admit that Google is almost always my first choice search engine, it is indeed true. I like the interface and I like the results, as do many people across the world. This is perhaps why is has been so successful. However, I do agree that Google is a "privacy time bomb." It is because of the Patriot Act, the government can tap into any phone call, so if the right people are not elected it is only a matter of time before what we search for will be traced and used against us by people that should never have access to this kind of information.

Précis #2

Domain Name Disputes.

In the first article by Ivan Hoffman, the term "bad faith" is introduced. Ivan tells the readers that ICANN uses the term "bad faith" when any of these four things happen:

1. when a domain is purchased for the purpose of selling, renting, or transferring it to a party who owns a registered trademark or to a trademark's competitor.

2. when a domain is registered to prevent the owner of a registered trademark from protecting that trademark.

3. using a domain name for disrupting a competitors business.

4. purposely trying to draw visitors to the web site of the domain by creating confusion between the domain and the trademark.

In Ivan then tell us that bad faith is very crucial when it comes to each claim. Also, the owner of the domain has the right to fight back against any accusations of bad faith.

The next section deals with how claims are presented. First the trademark can file a civil action seeking injunctive relief; this stops the domain from use. Second, the dispute is heard by authorized arbitration bodies After this has happened, the claim would go "on hold." This changed in 2000 so now the domain will be cancelled but only after its received a written authorization from the domain name owner, and order fro the court, and a decision by the ICANN panel.

The update to this article talks about the use of celebrities names in domains. The first case is "juliaroberts.com." The article talks about the issues the UDRP had to face. They were:

1. is the domain identical to the actress's name?

2. did the actress have the rights for this domain?

3. does the domain owner have any legit rights to this domain?

4. is the domain being used in "bad faith?"

Obviously, JULIAROBERTS.com was spelled out right. She did not have trademark rights for her name, but "secondary rights." When it all boiled down, the council concluded that she did have trademark rights to her name. Also, they concluded that the domain was obtained in bad faith and they ordered the domain transferred to her. The Jimi Hendrix case was very similar.

The second article is about a case in VA. A man named Jerry Falwell wants to own the domains containing his name as the current owner is using them for some ridiculous political postings. The court then ruled that they did not have jurisdiction on the this case because it does not address a VA audience (where Jerry Falwell is from). It addresses a national audience.

I suppose I agree with the final decision made but it surely is unfortunate on Jerry Falwell's case that his name can represented in such a way he does not agree with. However, it is JUST a website, and most people know that if they type in "theirname.com" something that has nothing to do with them will come up. So personally, I think Jerry is wasting a lot of time and money.

Précis #1

Net Neutrality.

The article begins by informing the reader that Olympia Snowe, senator of Maine, and Byron Dorgan, senator of North Dakota have joined forces yet again to try and protect net neutrality. They have come up with another bill that is almost identical to their old one. Apparently their former bill vanished after losing 11-11 in a vote last year.

The next part of the article defines net neutrality. Basically, net neutrality says that packets on the Internet should be moved impartially, disregarding content, destination, and source. About a year ago big name companies began to plant the seed that they deserved the right to charge extra for premium placement on their network. However, once a few big names such as Vint Serf the creator of the Internet, got wind of this, the counter attack launched. Their case is that by prioritizing the web, Internet users will lose the freedom that they love so much about the Internet.

Snowe and Dorgan's bill would prevent major companies from prioritizing. It would allow users to search for whatever they wanted and without a fee of any kind. It would also suggest that all broadband companies would have to give their customers a choice between buying "standalone" broadband service. Federal Communications Commission would have the final say when enforcing any problems that came from the bill's requirements.

Also, Edward Markey of the House of Representatives is said to be coming up with a net neutrality plan of his own, after his former bill was shot down by the Republican chamber last year.

I think this article was very informational as I am a huge supporter of net neutrality. I feel as though everything keeps getting taken away from the people as more and more of my life goes by. The Internet needs to be free because that is one of it's beauties. As of right now, when I open Safari, I can navigate to any page I want, and that is the way that it should be. What gives the ISPs the right to filter what we the people see? The answer is NOTHING! This is why net neutrality is referred to as the "First Amendment for the Internet." This is America, the place that was established based on freedom and we need to keep it that way.