To Free or not To Free, That is the question.

Throughout the history of computing technology and the advent of the internet there have been many developments and contributions to digital information sharing. Previously we had discussed peer-to-peer file sharing and its impact on copyright infringement which is a relatively new phenomenon. In opposition, this idea of free data or file sharing came to mind in the early 1980’s when software programming became commoditized. Software programming until this point was primarily a free exchange market between scientific colleagues and the idea of having to pay for source codes extremely aggravated the MIT programmer Richard Stallman. Stallman, in response to this cultural shift had launched the GNU project. This project utilized the fundamentals of copyright law, but it was used in order to benefit and reduce restrictions on reuse to the public rather than confining them. Stallman developed a license on this principle using a word play on copyright and coined the term, “copyleft,” license. The, “copyleft,” license was a shear polar opposite of copyright restrictions and the term, “free software,” was initiated. This allowed users to run these forms of free or open-source software programs for any purpose with the freedoms to study and modify the programs in order, “to make improvements to the program,” according to Bruce Perens. This is significant to the public so the whole community benefits, under the strict licensing agreement that the source code must be kept open and shared in the public domain before compilation. Stallman defines free or open-source software with the following explanation: “Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech’, not ‘free beer’”.

An example of open-source software that I am highly familiar with is the Linux Operating System. Linux, unlike most operating systems is free, and is open to the user’s modification of the source code to better suit their needs. According to lecture, “Linux became very popular within the scientific and research communities in the 1990’s.” Because UB is a research focused institution, especially within the engineering department, Linux is the primary OS (operating system) in the engineering computer labs. I am familiar with this program because I recently took an intro to java programming course in the spring referred to as CSE113.

This system is great not only because it is free, but the individual user can alter the application programs to suit their individual needs or desires. I myself never altered the applications in Linux, but through Linux I was able to write my own source code for my own applications. The code that I wrote was in the program Dr. Java, which is an open-source software program itself. The department had altered the program and created its own classes for the students to better understand and execute the code. I had actually written six programs that semester, which were also open-source software programs that anyone had the ability to access and alter even after compilation. I found it to be highly interesting that I was able to write programs that were free, that are very similar to programs that people would ordinarily pay for. For instance I wrote a program that is capable of altering an image to any extent that an image can be manipulated. The program I wrote is very similar to Photoshop, but it is easier to use, and the source code was left available to any user who wanted to add methods of manipulation to the code. Another program that I wrote is a contact phonebook that has all the capabilities of any other cellular phonebook. The irony in this is that my cell phone runs a java program for its phonebook, which was paid for by Motorola, when they could have simply taken the program I wrote for free. This would have been a form of a gift economy, only without the concept of implicit reciprocation. The gift according to Peter Kollack, “Gift exchanges should not involve explicit bargaining or demands that the gift is reciprocated, but a relationship in which there is only giving and no receiving is unlikely to last.”

I feel that open-source software is highly beneficial to the public and holds very little drawback to the profits of paid software developers. I also believe that this software such as Linux and Dr. Java reduce the amount of copyright infringement taking place. This is a great idea because it allows people with the capability and knowledge to write source codes for programs and then distribute it to whomever they feel like. This eliminates the amount of, “theft, piracy, and copyright infringement” currently taking place and is also an established middle ground between the desires of both file sharers and tangible product developers.

Lackaff, Derek. (2007). Intro to the Internet: COM125. Lecture notes.

Kollack, Peter. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Communities in Cyberspace.

Perens, Bruce. (1999) Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source revolution. O’Reily Online Catalog.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2007). Free Software. Wikipedia.

Copyright or Copy Wrong? Who's to decide?

The increasing amount of information, technology advancements, and media availability has caused approximately fifty-million Americans to participate in peer-to-peer activities such as (P2P) illegal file sharing. File sharing is not illegal within itself or within its host program or domain. It is the content of these files that has sparked a huge sociopolitical debate on the extent and usage of copyrighted material. This information is not only free and highly accessible to virtually anyone with a computer and an internet connection, but it has become increasingly harder to track such usage. The problem of this issue lies within the legalities and widespread accessibility of copyright infringement.
The entertainment and media industries are highly concerned with the vast array of illegal file sharing and copyright infringement. So, organizations such as the RIAA have placed an enormous pressure on the United States government to pursue harsh punishments and fines on copyright infringement. Furthermore, beyond criminal conviction, the RIAA and many entertainment labels have taken this matter into the civil courts as well. Infringement occurs when an individual or organization uses tangible material derived from, copied from, or illusorily replicated from an original work without proper attribution and the expressed written consent of the copyright holder.
Infringement is happening everyday whether it is intentional or unintentional. The problem with this is that if so many people are doing it and it is culturally accepted than what is wrong with it? One issue is not only the amount of people that are infringing, but it is the users’ obliviousness to legal violation and the severity of the consequences for doing so. Many people believe that it is within their constitutional right to do so, and many people believe that the internet is the public domain and therefore have the right of fair use. This is in fact very wrong. In addition, the interpretation of constitutional law is vague and the public awareness of law is limited. According to Kevin S. Brady, Esq. an Attorney at Law from Minneapolis, Minnesota (2004), “Although the law in this area is sparse, it is reasonably likely that you could be liable for infringement for making a copy of software, books or videos, and giving the copy to another person, even if it’s for free.” This leaves me to ask where one can metaphorically draw a suitable line for illegal file sharing and copyright infringement since the laws are so vague and the general public is either unaware of their breech or simply does not care.
Moreover, with the extent of illegal file sharing happening, most users are unaware that there could be criminal sanctions taken against them even if they have only obtained or shared just one infringed file, but also that it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt. Brady goes on to comment that, “As of yet NET (No Electronic Theft act) has not been applied against casual file sharers. Although many such file sharers offer content well in excess of the $2500 value, it is nevertheless difficult to prove that file sharers had actually shared content.”
In contrast, there lies the position of the entertainment industry upon these matters. The use of illegal file sharing has placed a detriment on the profits of these organizations. Not only are the losing capital, but it is almost as if their copyrights were nonexistent. They obtain such copyrights to increase profit, advance technology and promote developing cultural ideals. With an estimated fifty-million people indirectly stealing their material that would have been sold otherwise, it is only fair to the industry that they receive payments for their works, as well as reprimand the infringement violators.
With such a strong argument on both sides, it leaves many ideals and paradigms left, unregulated, not clarified, and many questions left unanswered. This calls for immediate governmental processes to mediate the situation. The government must be able to accommodate both sides of the highly debated argument. In reiteration, the first problem lies within the copyright laws and its enforcement. Brady furthers this argument stating, “The enforcement of these copyright laws is rather spotty, and the case law is sparse, if any exists at all.” Also, illegal file sharing needs to be publicly addressed and ascertained and the victims of infringement need to be accommodated as well.
I myself enjoy the availability of obtaining free entertainment sources through the means of P2P file sharing programs along with millions of other Americans. I have downloaded copyrighted material from P2P file sharing programs for personal gain, but most of that material was downloaded in search of what I intended on receiving. Although I have not done so since I have become aware of the severity of copyright infringement, I believe their must be an asserted middle ground solution. Therefore, I propose that foremost there should be a clear, cohesive, and concise statute that declares all the stipulations of the use of copyrighted works, and limitations on file sharing technologies. Upon that, rather than creating technology that confines the use of copyrighted material, there should be a clear cut and well expressed warning of copyright infringement within the booting process and startup menu of internet accessible technology. Like me, the fact remains that many others use this technology in search of their intended file. Additionally, the RIAA should create a search engine solely devoted to enabling the user to search and sample songs in order to find their intended file. With this creation, they would then be able to post hyperlinks to file sharing programs that allow the user to purchase such copyrighted material with expressed consent. I believe that this would promote proper use of file sharing technology, in turn resulting in increased profit which would allow them to encrypt and secure their material. As a result of all the elements included within my proposal, I can conclude that this would curtail the amount of user infringement on the internet as well as establishing a compromised solution to both arguments.

Hello! My Name Is Internet: History writing assignment

Ajsjumpoff: History writing assignment:From a concept to a necessity

Many researchers agree that the internet was developed by the U.S. Military, but the implementation of all its procedural elements cannot be solely attributed to the United States. The internet is the most prominent and effective form of communication today. On the other hand, it required many types of communication to implement its universal form of communication through the means of hypertext transfer protocol in a paradigm of the internet that we call the World Wide Web. Since 1994 and the innovation of the web browser, the internet has been globalized and centralized, but prior to then it was just an inter-faceted paradigm of mixed protocols, regulations, and concepts of message transmissions.
Although the United States’ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is credited with the advent of information processing and the interconnected networking system, significant enhancements were made to develop the internet by European nations and the program CERN. The first step that Europe took in integrating the interconnected networking system was in the form of X.25. X.25 is an ITU-T standard protocol suite for wide area networks using the phone or ISDN system as the networking hardware. Moreover, there were many forms of interconnected networking systems at this point, but in 1973 they were unified by Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf. They had developed a reformulation of the system, where the differences between network protocols were hidden by using a common internetwork protocol. This was eventually replaced because of the wide array of private institutions researching the interconnected networks and their involvement in software development. In 1984, a standard protocol was formed and the first Wide Area Network CSNET was designed specifically to use TCP/IP. TCP/IP is short for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. Between 1984 and 1988 CERN began its installation and operation of TCP/IP to interconnect its major internal computer systems, workstations, Personal Computers and an accelerator control system. In 1987 CERN had purchased the appropriate hardware from Cisco to route the TCP/IP across the already existing UUCP. In 1989, CERN had launched its first external TCP/IP connection and Australia had pushed for the standard use of IP as well.
Furthermore, with the vast global integration of IP software, the world was on the fringe of a fully functional message transmission database, but it needed to be opened to commerce. With this in mind, in the late 1980s, the first Internet Service Provider companies were formed. At this point in time the internet was now accessible to just about anyone who could afford it. For communicative purposes, technology was not the leading factor in the global use of the internet; it was regulation. According to the provided blog from Wikepedia, “ARPANET had been overtaken and replaced in 1990 by newer networking technologies and the project came to a close. In 1994, the NSFNet, now renamed ANSNET (Advanced Networks and Services) and non-profit corporations, lost their standing as the backbone of the Internet. Both government institutions and competing commercial providers created their own backbones and interconnections. Regional Network Access Points (NAPs) became the primary interconnections between the many networks and the final commercial restrictions ended.”
As the Internet grew through the 1980s and early 1990s, people realized the increasing need to be able to find and organize files and information. With this in mind, top level domains were created in the form of hypertext. Tim Berners-Lee from CERN was the first to develop a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. Additionally, with all the advents towards message transmissions on the internet, regulation needed to be instilled in order to organize and properly transmit these transmissions. This is where the United States regained its stronghold on the internet in 1991. It was Al Gore's High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 also known as the Gore Bill that had called for funding towards Mosaic the first internet web browser launched in 1993, and this is also when the hypertext WWW was implemented on creating an integrated World Wide Web(a web of interconnected strings of transmissions and information). Even before the World Wide Web, there were search engines that attempted to organize the Internet. Lycos, was created in 1993 as a university project, and was the first to achieve commercial success.
Conclusively, prior to 1994, the internet was a scattered disorganized paradigm of internetwork communication. It required the integration of many technological and communicative ideas and advents to achieve a fully functional internet. From software concepts and hardware necessities, onward to the regulation and integration of transmission protocol and hypertext, the formulation of the internet was executed by many different people and organizations. Now, according to many researchers the fastest and most efficient form of global communication is the internet. What took an array of mass, interpersonal, and inter-organizational communication and integration is now accessible to virtually anyone who has the means to do so. In short, one of the longest and largest communicative innovations ever made, is now the predominant form of information sharing.

Test

This is a test post.