Avoiding copyright extemism…

Lessig presented a very interesting talk entitled Three stories and an argument at TED recently. It’s well worth watching for both it’s content and delivery. The basic argument is familiar. Since digital technology and tools are becoming cheaper and easier to use the cost of producing and remixing copyrighted material is becoming very cheap. Add to this the cheap availability of an efficient communications platform (the Internet with its applications) large groups of people are moving from cultural consumers to becoming consumer/producers.

Professional creators in the past (musicians, authors, filmmakers etc) have always taken culture and remixed it. Taken different ideas and re-packaged them in order to create something new. Most of our ideas have not emerged in great leaps but in many small (inevitable?) steps. Today the technology is making this process more democratic in that the amateur is invading the realm of the professional – and, as Lessig puts it, this does not mean that the material produced is amateurish. It refers to amateur in the true sense of the word it is done out of love rather than money.

The major barrier to all this is copyright law. The problem with this is that the ability to take parts of our culture and remix them is an accepted form of communication among large groups of people and the institutional response has been criminalization. Copyright law has produced the presumption that remixing is illegal in particular in the digital realm. Since every use of culture in the digital realm entails a copy therefore every use should require permission.

This is an inefficient system that goes against the way in which people act. We are developing a system where people are aware that they are acting in violation to the law but they do not feel that this is wrong. Lessig warns about the growth of copyright extremism on both sides: One side builds new technologies to protect copies while the opponent cry out for the abolition of copyright.

Much of my time is spent advising university lecturers on the ways in which they can and cannot use new technologies in the classroom. The university of today is required to connect and compete with a generation of people who are connected and digitally sophisticated. In our attempts to connect and educate we provide students with laptops, wireless connectivity and digital material.

In all this copyright is creating a barrier to effective use of ICT in education. Lecturers and students attempting to benefit from online material are being driven to acting against the law. Copyright law limits the use of web2.0 technologies such as Blogs, YouTube and Flickr in the lecture halls, but the need to connect and educate is driving dedicated lecturers to circumvent, avoid, bend and break the law. This is not a good situation.

The problem is that the law has become inadequate for our needs. In order to ensure copyright control the legislator has forgotten to allow people to remix and to allow educators to use copyrighted material to a greater extent. This is not an argument for making mass copies of the latest Hollywood film – “pure” copyright “piracy” is, and should be, illegal.

But there is a need to allow access to culture beyond the passive consumer role. It also makes good business and democratic sense since it takes the edge away from the extremist positions, which threaten to push the discussions into chaos – as extremism, does. It is an argument to allow non commercial uses of copyrighted material without the fear of reprisals which exists today.

Scientific Impact and Scientific Books

Maybe it’s the approach of the first winter snows or maybe it’s just the most recent PhD cartoon (probably a combination of factors). But I began to think about my scientific impact.

phd111207s.gif

Jorge Cham PhD Comics

It’s been a year since I defended my thesis so I guess a little thought on the topic may not be entirely out of place. Since 1999 I have written over 40 academic texts (journal and conference articles, book chapters, reports and more). Besides my PhD I have also acted as editor to a book, taught an endless amount of classes and given countless guest lectures.

Despite all this “scientific” or “academic” production my impact on the scientific community is negligible. Ok so I realize that my field is not high profile. But I have the sneaking suspicion that the impact of my work is not what it should be or could be.

If we choose to set aside arguments that my impact is low because I am unreadable – since they provide no help – then there may be another reason.

The focus of scientific/academic work has become the journal article. We are not measured in research but in publication. The problem with this system is that it creates a desire (intentional or unintentional) to manipulate the system. What we have seen over the last thirty years is the explosion of the number of journals and the publication hungry academic is always in the market for yet another place to deliver an article to.

The purpose of the journal was to provide an avenue where scientific work could be published quickly and in a focused manner. Well while some journals have longer time-to-print than books this is no longer an advantage. And the dance between authors, editors and reviewers has become so stylized that it resembles a kabuki theater (complex, ornate & beautiful but incomprehensible).

So where am I going with this? Not very far. The process of academic work entails journal publication – we are locked into this system. But to achieve true recognition and impact, in my field, I think your either need to be a cartoonist – or to write books.

Bad Planning

Most annoying. Here is a list of events I have been invited to attend. I want to attend but I will miss them all. Basically this is the worst case of bad planning I have ever experienced. But if you happen to be in the right place (as opposed to me) then I would recommend that you attend.

November 8th Makt och motstånd i den digitala tidsåldern, (Swedish text by Christopher Kullenberg can be downloaded here), Room 325, Annedalsseminariet. A text seminar at the Resistance Studies Network, Annedalsseminariet, Göteborg. This seminar will focus on the question concerning the conditions for resistance in the digital era of information technologies and surveillance. The seminar will discuss the shift from disciplinary societies to societies of control, and explore the relationships between power and resistance. I will be in Stockholm.

On 17 November: Who Makes and Owns Your Work? A multipart event in Stockholm addressing sharing, distribution and intellectual propert, Årsta Folkets Hus in Stockholm. I will be in Göteborg.

On the 5th December there will be a Surveillance seminar in Göteborg (room C430, Humanisten) but I will be in Norway.

Students and Technology

Remember Michael Wesch? He created the excellent video The Machine is Us/ing Us about web2.0. Its message: The Machine is us was very nicely argued. Prof Wesch is back again with another video, A Vision of Students Today, about the student life today. Mainly (but not only) about the relationship between teaching and technology.

The students surveyed themselves and this resulted in the following statements – but don’t stop here – the film is very much worth watching both for its message and presentation. Here are some of the statements which arise from the survey:

  • I complete 49% of readings assigned to me
  • I will read 8 books this year, 2300 web pages & 1281 facebook profiles
  • I facebook through most of my classes

The film contains two important quotes – the first my McLuhan (1967)

Today’s child is bewildered when he enters the 19th century environment that still characterizes the educational establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns subjects and schedules.

and the second from 1841 when Josiah F. Bumstead said about the inventor of the blackboard:

The inventor of the system deserves to be ranked among the best contributors to learning science, if not the greatest benefactors of mankind.

Don’t make the mistake of interpreting Wesch as a luddite. It is very important to be able to criticize technology. The amazing thing is that we are allowed to criticize cars without being accused of luddism but if you are critical towards IT you stand accused of wanting to return to the stone age.

Wesch is making an important point that teaching should be more relevant and less dependent upon technology. Simply adding technology, or supplying it to students, does not improve teaching, learning or education.

Prof Wesch Digital Ethnography Blog

Oh, and while you are there check out their Information R/evolution video.

CC 5 years old

Creative Commons is going to celebrate its fifth birthday in December and it’s adoption and spread is nothing short of amazing.

cc_world_sept07.jpg

The green/grey countries have adopted CC, the yellow or on the verge of adopting and the red have not begun to work on the licenses. Seen as a bottom-up movement the spread of Creative Commons shows its amazing success.

In the five years since our launch, we have grown up fast. In 2004, we incubated an international movement supporting the ideals of the Internet and cultural freedom (iCommons). This year we spun that organization out as an independent UK-based charity. In 2005, we launched a project to support a commons within science (Science Commons). This year Science Commons launched the Neurocommons, an e-research project built exclusively on open scientific literature and databases, and the Materials Transfer Project, an extension of the ideas of the commons to physical tools such as gene plasmids and cell lines. And just two months ago, we announced a significant grant that has enabled us to launch a project focused on learning and education (ccLearn). There is now a staff of over 30 in four offices around the world, supporting thousands of volunteers in more than 70 local jurisdiction projects around the world, who, in turn, support the millions of objects that have been marked with the freedoms that CC licenses enable.

On my desk & wall

Following a recent low-key trend here comes a totally frivolous posting about what is on my desk and the wall in front of me. On my desk at work I have the usual telephone, screen, mouse & keyboard. Penholder, Far Side calender, bottle of water, coffee mug with skull & crossbones, camera lens cover, envelope with posters, cd collection, my rings, train ticket, mobile phone & hands-free… Actually this is my desk in a rather tidy condition.

desk.jpg

On the wall in front of me is a bookcase with the stuff that doesn’t need to be instantly available such as a nostalgia Mac Classic and Mac Newton, a globe which lights up and my poster of Tintin et les Picaros.

wall.jpg

There is also a collection of PhD’s presented at our department some other strange books “The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring” and a history of Karate, a small pile of useless papers and an empty lunchbox…

So, whats on your desk and wall?

Plagiarism Saga

Following the embarrassing case of plagiarism at my university (Göteborg) has turned into a long process (here, here, here and here).

The brief outline of the case is that a researcher acting as a supervisor for a mastes thesis used some of the students work in a conference paper without referencing the work of the students. Apparently the students were mentioned in the oral presentation of the paper. Not that this matters.

May 2005: The conference when the paper was presented.

November 2005: The plagiarism is addressed by the Faculty, unsure what they actually did probably just decided to send the errand on to the ethics committee.

May 2006: A split ethics committee is not in agreement and send the case on to the National Science Council (Vetenskapsrådet)

March 2007: National Science Council reaches the conclusion that the researcher had behaved in an unethical manner by plagiarising student essays.

June 2007: The expert group at the Science council reach the same conclusion.

September 2007: The Human Resources Committee at Göteborg University is the body with the power to punish the researcher for her actions is unable to act since the university failed to notify the researcher, in writing, that disciplinary actions could be taken. This notification must take place within two years of the waking of the errand.  This means that since nobody at the university bothered to notify the researcher in writing during the past two year no disciplinary actions can be taken.

This situation has been handled incredibly badly….

Free Software Conference

On the 7-8 December Göteborg will be hosting the first Free Software Conference Scandinavia (FSCONS). The event, which is already promising to become an important event on the Free Software calendar, is a good mix of techies and freedom folks.

While the techies will be able to enjoy talks on squid, gtk, GnuTLS and OpenMoko (among others) the non-techies (like myself) will be talking about digital rights, consumer rights, free software licensing & women in IT.

I am looking forward to speaking on the topic of Digital Rights

In an Internet-based participatory democracy we are particularly dependent upon our technological infrastructure. The qualities of digital communication and interaction create a situation where the user is often incapable ensuring the integrity and security of the communications infrastructure. Therefore we are becoming increasingly dependent upon experts to ensure the openness, accessibility and freedom of the infrastructure of our democracy. This session will address the threats and opportunities faced by users in a digital participatory democracy and the steps we need to ensure the openness of digital democracy.

But I am particularly looking forward to listening to (and discussing with) people like Shane Coughlan, Anne Østergaard and Fernanda Weiden. It’s nice to see that events such as this (and the Stallman lecture) are being arranged in my hometown.

Great Work by the tireless Henrik!