Net204: Internet Communities and Social Networks - Stage 2: Communities & Web 2.0

Stage 2 is about preparing for the 2000-2500 word paper for the Online Conference. There are 4 streams:

1. Communities and Web 2.0
2. Social Networks
3. Identity in Communities and Networks
4. Communities and Online Gaming

© Stiven | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

Communities and Web 2.0

Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System
This paper by Jeffrey Boase discusses how social interactions are affected by online communication. Interesting points from this reader:

• Although it is true that individuals may sometimes form new social ties through one medium such as the Internet, as these ties become close they are often contacted through other means, either in person or by phone
• Social ties have two important dimensions - cognition and behaviour. The cognitive dimension includes the belief that a social tie exists as well as feelings of closeness, memory of past interaction and knowledge about that tie. The behavioural dimension is interaction that typically occurs by way of mediated and unmediated communication.

Web 2.0 Technologies and Community Building Online

This paper by Palloff and Pratt defines Web 2.0 as the second generation of the World Wide Web, offering higher levels of user interaction and collaboration. Much of Web 2.0 emerged from the desire of young people for self-expression through creation of content posted on the Web, easy communication with peers, and ways to stay connected to friends. However many adults are now using Web 2.0 technologies to also stay connected with their networks, as are businesses for marketing purposes.

The more common forms of Web 2.0 technology include, but are not limited to:

• blogs
• learner generated content (aka Collective Intelligence)
• wikis
• podcasts
• RSS
• social networking
• Skype
• Second Life

There are many pros and cons when using Web 2.0 technology. Some negatives include:

• copyright issues (ie Facebook owns whatever you share)
• people can wander into suspect areas or sites by accident
• archiving and loss of content with uploaded files
• social networking sites may blur the lines of formality

References:

Boase, J. (2008). Personal Networks and The Personal Communication System: Using Multiple Media to connect. Information, Communication & Society, 11.4, 490-508

Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2009). Web 2.0 Technologies and Community Building Online. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning

My understanding of Australia's copyright laws

These notes are taken from the paper titled Copyright and the Digital Economy produced by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). It is an Issues Paper asking for submissions or comments so a new copyright reform can be implemented. It's dated 17th August 2012.

In the inquiry the ALRC is interested in evidence on how Australia's copyright law is affecting participation in the digital economy. Is there evidence about how copyright law:

• affects the ability of creators to earn a living, including through access to new revenue streams and new digital goods and services;
• affects the introduction of new or innovative business models;
• imposes unnecessary costs of inefficiencies on creators or those wanting to access or make use of copyright material; or
• places Australia at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

Other questions raised in the issue paper cover topics like:

• caching, indexing and other internet functions
• cloud computing
• copying for private use
• online use for social, private or domestic purposes
• transformative use
• libraries, archives and digitisation
• orphan works
• data and text mining
• educational institutions
• crown use of copyright material
• retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts
• statutory licences in the digital environment
• fair dealing exceptions
• other free-use exceptions

The issue paper is an 88 page document under review and can be downloaded as a pdf here. This is still a stepping stone toward fixing our outdated copyright legislation, but it will definitely be an improvement to what is already in place. Online submissions are being accepted here. The Final Report is due to be delivered by 30 November 2013.

ALRC Commissioner for the Copyright Inquiry, Professor Jill McKeough, said “Copyright law is an important part of Australia’s digital infrastructure and is relevant to commercial, creative and cultural policy. The questions we are asking in this Inquiry go to whether our current copyright laws are properly aiding the development of opportunities for Australian creators and not unduly hindering the development of new business models while at the same time ensuring appropriate protection for copyright. At the same time, the expectations of a global community to access and use material for a whole range of creative, community, educative and commercial purposes also needs to be considered. We are aware that, in formulating any proposals for reform of copyright law, the costs and benefits to the community must be taken into account” (ALRC, 2012).

Technology has brought new means of copying; digitisation reduces the costs of copying and raises the costs of enforcement. In addition, changes or developments in the attitude of consumers and users of copyright material has led to reduced recognition that copyright is a form of property, that is it owned by a creator (or more usually, the assignee of a creator) and that moral rights and issues of attribution an integrity of works may be significantly compromised in a 'freed up' copyright environment.

Copyright law may not always influence individual or private behaviour, and there is constant debate about whether it acts as an incentive to production of new material. Even where copyright is recognised, infringement may be seen as a form of 'cultural heroism' or regarded as an appropriate consumer response to a large, powerful and greedy multinational company.

We must focus on the rules for access as well as on the social, interactive way people now relate to each other and to copyrighted works...Laws and business models rooted in the early 18th century cannot be effective in the 21st century (ALRC, 2012).

These are some points which interested me from the paper:

• Even Australia's copyright laws are outdated, and the US laws are 'ridiculous' the UK have successfully updated their legislation, as have New Zealand and Canada
• Reform should promote the development of the digital economy by providing incentives for innovation in technologies and access to content
• Reform should encourage innovation and competition and not disadvantage Australian content creators, service providers or users in Australia or international markets
• Laws that are irrelevant and do not fit with community practice are undesirable. This is not to suggest everything should be free, but licensing or exempting what is currently widespread infringement should be considered
• Internet service providers, search engines, web hosts and other internet intermediaries rely on indexing and caching ie. Google use web crawlers to find copies of websites. These copies are then indexed and stored in a 'cache' so when a user enters a search query, Google uses the cached version. Caching improves the internet's performance, allowing search engines fast retrieval of information, but the copying of works by a search engine for the purposes of indexing or caching may infringe copyright. The UK has a specific exception that allows a provider to cache copyright material. New Zealand and Canada have similar exceptions
• Companies that offer cloud computing may also risk infringement, eg. by reproducing or communicating copyright material originally uploaded to their servers by their customer
• Australians routinely make copies of TV shows and films for their private use and later viewing and believe this should NOT be against the law. An amended act introduced in 2007 permits this, but only for 'broadcasted' content - NOT Internet content. So this excludes TV shows and films downloaded from the Internet
• User Generated Content (UGC) reflects a certain amount of creative effort and includes audio-visual excerpts from copyright material such as movies and music. Some of these cases are covered under the clause 'criticism or review' or 'parody or satire'. However much UGC will not fit within these exceptions, e.g. using a copyright sound recording in a home video It has been suggested that a new specific exception should be introduced allowing individuals to make user-generated content where this does not 'unjustifiably harm copyright owners'.
• The term 'Transformative' generally refers to works that transform pre-existing works to create something new. This includes 'sampling', 'remixes' and 'mashups'
• In the US acts are considered 'transformative' as opposed to 'derivative' when they do more than merely 'supersede the objects' of the original creation and 'add something new' with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message
• Authors often draw upon pre-existing works and transform them to create new works that criticise, comment upon or offer new insights - these are considered parodies
• Other well known transformative works include sampling and mashups
• The current Copyright Act provides that fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review, and parody or satire do not constitute an infringement of copyright however not all use that might be classed as transformative will be parody, satirical or critical. Nor will sampling and mashups - these will usually constitute infringement
• Canada adjusted their laws and created a new exception for UGC by non-commercial users. It provides a right to use, for non commercial purposes, a publicly available work in order to create a new work
• Digitisation offers avenues for better preservation and wider dissemination of works in less costly ways than previously possible and digitisation may also be able to generate returns that were not possible before - like benefits to the copyright holders. On the other hand it may also result in a loss of control as to how works may be used
• Digitisation of analogue work is in fact a reproduction and may constitute copyright infringement and in relation to Indigenous works - communities may consider that works are owned by a collective, rather than an individual as part of an ongoing knowledge tradition so moral rights issues may arise. There is no specific exception in the current Copyright Act that covers mass digitisation projects or digitisation for the purposes of providing public access to works
• Orphan works define the situation where a copyright owner can not be identified or located so orphan works presents a recognised problem in mass digitisation projects undertaken by public and cultural institutions
• In Australia the National Film and Sound Archives estimates that about 20% of the national audio-visual collection is abandoned or orphaned. There are existing models in Canada and the Nordic countries that specifically address orphan works. Access to these works is an important public interest benefit that must be balanced with ensuring that copyright owners are properly compensated for their work
• The growth of digital technology and online social networking has seen increasing amounts of data - text, images and numbers - stored in databases and repositories. Data mining is used across a number of research sectors including medicine, business, marketing, academic and publishing
• Data mining is defined as the copying of existing electronic information, for instance journal articles, and analysing the data they contain for patterns, trends and other useful information.
• The Terms of References refers to the general interests of Australians to access, use and interact with content in the advancement of education, research and culture so data mining in this case needs to be addressed - there is no current exception for data mining
• In regard to educational institutions - there are multiple free-use exceptions and statutory licensing schemes that apply to the use of copyright material by students and educational institutions. These exceptions and how they interact, however, are very complex. The relationship between fair dealing for the purpose of research or study is unclear
• With the current law the Copyright Act does no define a 'fair dealing'. Rather specific fair dealing exceptions exist for the purposes of:

1. research or study
2. criticism or review
3. parody and satire
4. reporting news
5. legal practitioner, registered patent attorney or registered trade marks attorney giving professional advice

• Not all of these exceptions are available for all types of copyright material. So a question which needs to be answered is should the Copyright Act provide for any other specific fair dealing exceptions? For example, should there be a fair dealing exception for the purpose of quotations, and if so, how should it apply?

---

References:

Copyright and the Digital Economy Issues Paper: Australian Law Reform Commission. August 17th, 2012.

Web206: Topic 1.3: Cut, Paste and Copyright (and Information Overload)

Image courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/dermartin/2955625983/sizes/m/in/photostream/
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Information Overload

Information overload is a concern these days with so much information available on the Internet. Back in the days before the Internet when everything was printed - printing costs were high and demand and accessibility for certain material was low. Nowadays because EVERYTHING is available online and mainly for free, how do we filter out what we don't want? How much time do you spend deleting spam from your inbox? How many ads do you avoid while surfing the net? How much do you believe? Who are trusted, reliable and credible sources? Most things published online have NOT gone through an editor or a gate-keeper so people are able to air their grievances and express their opinions to anybody around the world.


Video: Clay Shirky's "It's not information overload, it's filter failure"

Video courtesy of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabqeJEOQyI

My notes from this video:

• Facebook has one of the BEST thought-out and executed privacy management tools of all the social networking sites. What the problem is though is that managing our privacy is an unnatural act - it isn't something that anybody is good at setting up and doing
• Privacy is a way of managing information flow
• We don't tend to worry about having a discussion with a friend in the street and somebody overhearing us. But we do worry about what is 'overhead' online, ie. status updates and relationship statuses on Facebook

We have had information overload in some form

or another since the 1500s.

What's changing now is the filters we used for most of that

500 year period are now breaking (Shirky, 2008).

Copyright

Everything we write is almost always based on something that someone else has written. Privacy is the infringement of copyright, while plagarism is the failure to give credit. If we are repeating something another person has said - we need to credit that person - EVEN IF they stole it from somebody else!

As a Web Designer we need to think about the images and content we create. Do we want others to be able to share our images? Re-use them? Modify them? Or make money from them? We need to either copyright our designs (visual or text) or apply a Creative Commons Licence. This needs to be enforced for future Internet users. Generations to come need to be aware of the dangers and penalties of copyright - whether we agree with the current copyright laws or not!

Lawrence Lessig (US lawyer and anti-copyright campaigner) is well known for his stand on copyright legislation and believes we need a reform because the current copyright laws are smothering creators. Creators are not able to express themselves without the fear of being penalised for plagarism. He believes creativity is not based on coming up with completely new ideas, but from modifying existing ideas. Everything old is new again.

Berry states "the paramount claim of Lessig's prognosis about the fate of culture is that we will be unable to create new culture when the resources of that culture are owned and controlled by a limited number of private corporations and individuals (Berry, 2005). He goes on to say the Creative Commons network might enable sharing of cultural goods and resources amongst possessive individuals and groups. But these goods are neither really shared in common, nor owned in common, nor accountable to the common itself. It is left to the whims of private individuals and groups to permit reuse.

Berry isn't a fan of Lessig and believes that Lessig's attempt to make it easier to understand which creative works can, or cannot, be used for modification has spawned a monster with a thousand heads and resulted in a more complex issue as the current copyright act (Berry, 2005).

As a web designer not only do we need to consider copyrighted images, but also code from other websites. Consider for instance the common practice of downloading html tags that define the layout of a website. Even if you don't include any of the content and only use the html and css coding to style a new webpage - is that copyright infringement? Are web designers obligated to give credit to the original author? What if that author stole it from another...and from another...and so on? The copyright issue in this situation is unclear (Snapper, 1999).

Plagiarism harms the author who receives no credit, but unless there is also copyright infringement, an author has few legal grounds for claiming economic loss for a plagiarised use of his work. There is no direct financial harm.

Snapper believes that the actual harm is not to the author, but to the reader. If sources are not credited - the reader can do no further research via the (un)credited sources.

An interesting point which Snapper raises is although academics write a great deal and profit from their writings with academic recognition, they rarely expect to make much money from copyright licenses.

And another...electronic publications lowers both the cost and the financial risk of publication, and therefore suggests that the electronic publication industry needs fewer copyright protections that the hard-copy publication industry (Snapper, 1999).

It is more likely that as the Web becomes a more important tool for research and distribution of information, we will see a slight shift in the importance that is attached to piracy and plagiarism. In order to protect the scholarly community against plagiarism in cyberspace, we may need to lessen the property protections of the copyright owner in cyberspace.

Snapper asks this in relation to Fair Use:

Scholars should be able to keep a copy of a source -

but this is considered plagiarism.

Therefore it would seem reasonable that copying

for the sake of archiving electronic information

be seen as 'fair use'.

An interesting question from Clay Shirky on the topic of information overload, but I think it suits the current copyright laws:

If we have the same problem for a long time -

maybe it's not a problem - it's a fact (Shirky, 2008)!

Sources of images

As a Web Designer I am always trying to source images to use which are permitted or licence free. This presentation was created by a fellow student, Katrina Comyns. She discusses remixing and re-using stock images and explains the difference between licenced, free and royalty free.

Un-complicating the complex world of remixing and reusing Stock Photography - A guide for graphic designers on Prezi

Here is a list of sources which offer free, royalty free, licence free, or paid images:

• Clip art from within Word etc. (this typically comes with the license to use the program)
• Free clip art sites (Google them but make sure they are free - many want a fee) OpenClipArt is a good one
• Royalty free art (This is art where you pay a once-off fee and can then use without paying royalties. 123RF is a good one.
• Stockphoto
• StockFreeImages 
• Shutterstock
• Freepik
• Getty images
• Wikimedia Commons
• Stock.XCHNG
• Creative Commons
• Flickr - search under 'Attribution license"

---

References:

Berry, D (2005) On the 'Creative Commons': a critique of the commons without commonalty. Retrieved from http://fsmsh.com/1155

Comyns, K (2012) Un-complicating the complex world of remixing and reusing Stock Photography - A guide for graphic designers. Retrieved from http://prezi.com/aowz1lv9k-pm/un-complicating-the-complex-world-of-remixing-and-reusing-stock-photography-a-guide-for-graphic-designers/

Shirky, C (2008) Web 2.0 Expo NY: Clay Shirky (shirky.com) It's Not Information Overload. It's Filter Failure. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabqeJEOQyI

Snapper, J (1999) On the Web, plagiarism matters more than copyright piracy. Dept Humanities, Institute of Technology, Chicago.

Web207: Topic 2.1: Remixes/Mashups & Creative Commons Licences

We have progressed from a read-only media landscape (traditional media) to a read-write media landscape (the ability to create, read and remix media). It has raised some interesting questions about our current copyright policies. Notes from this week's lecture:

• Text isn't copyrighted as strictly has rich text (video and audio) because you can quote and paraphrase legally as long as you credit the original source
• Remixing is a form of literacy and takes more effort to remix than to create something new
• Creative Commons Licences:

1. Attribution - credit the original author
2. Non commercial - permission to use content as long as you don't profit from it
3. No derivatives - can copy and share content as long as you don't make any changes to it
4. Share Alike - can use content but your creation must also have the same Share Alike licence

Reflection:
Why can't we re-use any content as long as we credit the author?


Reference:
Leaver, T. (2012) ... Topic 2.1: Remix/Mashup/Copyright [Lecture]. Retrieved from http://dbs.ilectures.curtin.edu.au/lectopia/casterframe.lasso?fid=794620&cnt=true&usr=not-indicated&name=not-indicated

Web207: Topic 2.0: Copyright

This week we covered what is expected for the next 2 assignments and copyright issues. Here are my notes from the lecture and readers:

• Remixing and mashing up is taking bits from several pieces of media to make something new
• Society has progressed from a read only media culture to a read-write culture. We not only read, but we comment and make remixes and mashups to comment, compliment original authors or share content
• Our copyright laws leave a lot to be desired. For our assignment it is suggested we use the 'Fair Dealing Clause'
• In every day life it is good practice to credit every source you use (content and images)
• There are exceptions to the copyright law, but in most works copyright lasts for 70 years AFTER THE AUTHOR'S DEATH
• Australia's Fair Dealing Clause is similar to (but not the same as) the US Fair Use Clause
• The US also has a 'Transformative Clause' where if content is change enough it is considered new work BUT Australia does NOT have this clause
• Fair Dealing can be used for research and study; criticism and review; news reporting; reproduction for the purposes of judicial proceedings or legal professional advice; parody and satire and can be declared if you are only using 10% or one chapter of a book. BUT THESE RULES DO NOT APPLY IF YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR WORK ON THE INTERNET!!!
• Therefore Fair Dealing is really only accepted if it is 'criticism and review' and possibly 'parody and satire'
• Another alternative is to ask original authors for permission to use their content or images
• Another alternative is to use content and images under Creative Commons Licence as long as you attribute them
• The final alternative is to use the public domain which no longer has copyright (content created before 1912)
• When we create something new we are automatically protected under copyright laws so what we create is OURS whether we display the copyright logo or not. Anyone else using your content or images MUST ask for your permission or only use 10% under fair dealing then they must declare they are using the Fair Dealing Clause (Leaver, 2012).

Reflection:

Many questions are left unanswered this week:

1. Is copyright a tool or corporate control rather than one which encourages creativity
2. If we are not paying or a service (Facebook) we are the product! So how can Facebook pay $1B for Instagram when Instagram made no money? How can you put a price on something like Instagram which is a free app?
3. Why don't authors have to show the copyright logo but people who use content in Fair Dealing have to declare they are using the Fair Dealing clause?

Reference:
Leaver, T. (2012) ... Topic 2.0: Copyright [Lecture]. Retrieved from http://dbs.ilectures.curtin.edu.au/lectopia/casterframe.lasso?fid=794620&cnt=true&usr=not-indicated&name=not-indicated

Web207: Topic 1.3: Music

Image courtesy of http://deterritorialsupportgroup.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/wikileaks-napste/

Notes from this week's lecture and readings:

• Music has had to wrestle with digitalisation and convergence longer than other mediums because it can be compressed smaller than film and TV shows - so it is easier and faster to share than other formats
• Napster wasn't the first peer to peer site, but it was the first to get attention. This was because all users had to go through a central index which rang alarm bells with copyright holders
• P2P isn't a new concept – its been around since 1969 with UseNet, however now with computers being able to access high speed broadband and the capacity for larger memory – P2P is now easy for the average home user. P2P has become an increasingly useful model for internet-based collaboration and networking (Wikstrom, 2010)
• With the digitalisation of music - music has had to shift from a physical product (record/tape/CD) to a service (digital format/platform)
• Lily Allen was discovered on MySpace and Justin Bieber on YouTube
• In the analogue age, it was difficult to be discovered, but now with the digital age, all it takes is for your home-baked song or video to be uploaded to YouTube and the chances of being discovered are increased (Wikstrom, 2010)
• For years the record companies had been making billions of dollars, paying as little as possible to the artist and charging as much as possible for records/tapes/CD's and concert tickets – yet it's the listeners who get punished (fined for copyright infringement) when it should be the record companies who get punished (Kot, 2009)
• When the audience is actually creating the technology – the business has to adapt. But the industry had no intention of adapting – they were a profitable controlling industry which, with the invention of CD's, now had a new reason to sell music they had already sold on vinyl years earlier...for double the original price of a record or cassette. There was no reason to change because things were just too good. In 1999 the total revenue from music sales (albums and singles) was $14.6 billion (Kot, 2009).

Reflection:

Napster did offer record companies a billion dollar deal before they were shut down, however they were turned down. If they had agreed - would iTunes be around today? We may be buying and downloading songs/shows/films from Napster instead! Shawn Fanning could be one of the wealthiest men in the tech world instead of Steve Jobs.

References:

Kot, G. (2009). Napster vs. Metallica. In Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music (pp. 25-39). New York: Scribner. http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60267031.pdf&copyright=1 

Wikstrom, P. (2010). The Social and Creative Music Fan. In The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud (pp. 147-169). Polity

Web207: Topic 1.1: Television

Study notes from this week are summarised below. References will be cited where appropriate.

• Time-shifting began back in the days of VCR's. Nowadays Foxtel, TiVo and PVR's make it easier and faster to time shift and watch what we want WHEN we want
• When analogue was copied (video's) they lost 10% of quality every time they were copied. This meant there were limitations on how many times a video tape could be copied. These days digital copies have no limitations
• TiVo in the USA has the option of watching a program without commercials. You can also search for movies containing specific actors. TiVo is NOT the same in Australia because it is owned by Channel 7 so they act as gate-keepers by not allowing viewers to view content without the ads
• Overflow can be defined as the multi-media involvement in TV shows i.e. websites set up for specific shows, social networks, hash tags, Facebook pages, etc.
• Overflow allows for social media viewing and using apps to encourage real time engagement with TV shows
• Overflow has dramatically changed the viewers experience and increased the levels of fandom, affective play and identification (Gray, 2008)
• The tyranny of digital distance refers to many aspects of viewing pleasure, in particular how Australians have to wait for some shows to come from overseas. These days of social networking allows viewers to 'talk' about episodes, plots and characters, however this can 'spoil' it for viewers not able to watch the most latest episode.
• If distributors don't find a way of getting the latest episode to ALL viewers at the same time - viewers will find their own way, ie. peer to peer sharing and illegal downloads (Leaver, 2012)
• Media technologies are shaped by the intersection of technological, institutional, and cultural forces, emerging with unpredictable uses and social impacts (Mittel, 2006)
• Television is accompanied by significant 'overflow'. We are invited to 'live' such-and-such a program, interact with it's characters in games and online spaces. We are no longer limited to the 'television medium' (Gray, 2008)
• While fan communities have long been exemplars of media-centred creativity and interaction, the internet has facilitated a massive increase in both the speed of interaction and breadth of fan involvement (Leaver, 2008).

Reflection:

Copyright wasn't an issue back in the days of VCR's because copying fell under the radar. These days with illegal downloads, social media and Internet exposure - copyright owners are more aware, more strict about copying content and there are hefty fines in place for those caught.

References:

Gray, J. A. (2008). Television Unboxed: expansion, overflow, and synergy. Television Entertainment 2008, (Ch 3), 73-101. Retrieved from http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=dc60267029.pdf&copyright=1

Leaver, T. (2008). Watching Battlestar Galactica in Australia and The Tyranny of Digital Distance. Media International Australia, 126, 145-154.

Leaver, T. (2012) ... Topic 1.1: Television [Lecture]. Retrieved from http://dbs.ilectures.curtin.edu.au/lectopia/casterframe.lasso?fid=794620&cnt=true&usr=not-indicated&name=not-indicated

Mittel, J. (2006). TiVoing Children. Retrieved 4th June, 2012, 2012, from http://flowtv.org/2006/02/tivoing-childhood/