Wikipedia does three things the Jenkins deems important. First, it allows me to access new technology to edit and add data. Next, it accomplishes the DIY in that the I am responsible for the information I read and contribute, and I am able, if I wished to provide information in not only text but also images.
There are two opposing ideas here. One is
knowledge culture and commodity culture (136). The tension is that the commodity culture is more proprietary, and the other is not. Sites with the commodity culture will be less inclined to allow users such access for fear of losing authorship, or profits. Wikipedia is of the knowledge culture and wishes to help the readers to gain access to information. Still the site keeps strict adherence to maintaining the copyright laws, and on this point I approached the assignment with great trepidation. I half-expected Moses to call down another plague as I, a mere mortal, dared to alter a page on the Holy Web, even if my contribution consisted merely of asking copyright questions.
Jenkins appears to want me to be free from such fears. Indeed, the presence and success of Wikipedia is to show that the newer model of authorship can work, and readers can indeed contribute to knowledge without an original author’s potential loss of profits or reputation, though, undoubtedly, there would have to be adjustments for those of the commodity culture. There are promising trends with the way some media giants handle fan fiction.
With Wikipedia, I was part of a myriad of users, putting in information. I became part of what Levy through Jenkins described as “Collective Intelligence”, not the mindless organization of ants or bees, but an individual in this giant project (136).
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Star Trek and Authorship
Star Trek ran through a weekly series (oft too far past my bedtime to watchas a child, so I became familiar with the episodes only when I reached college), then it was taken off the air, then resurrected through movies, then a new cast brought back weekly series on television(NexGen), then that went, while it branched off into different aspects for example, Deep Space 9.
The original series has many allusions to older models, some in science fiction and some in earlier models. Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy, the ships doctor and surgeon, reminds me of the relationship between Captain Aubrey of the 18th and 19th century Royal Navy and his Doctor Maturin in the Patrick O’Brian novels. Jack Aubrey is not without major faults, and neither is James Kirk, hardly superhero types.
As for science fiction, the voyages of Captain Kirk’s Enterprise to "strange new worlds" remind me of the one voyage of a spaceship in the science fiction classic, Forbidden Planet, involving a trip to a strange world of Altair IV, with deadly secrets. Robby the Robot served Morbius, the scientist as his advisor, while in Star Trek, that role was embodied in Mr. Spock, a logical, non-emotional Vulcan, serving Kirk.
The powers-that-be in Hollywood will soon restart the original series with new actors. It will be interesting to see if they rely upon tradition.
Collins uses Batman and Bond, and cites them as superheroes. I cannot see Kirk as a superhero, and often he appears to believe he is sent by the powers above to cause pain. Still, in the earlier episodes, he behaves as a tough, no-nonsense commanding officer, while in later shows he is a weak Bond in his attempts to propagate the galaxy. Yet the show persists in the minds and hearts of rabid “Trekkies” (even I am partially infected), thus the lingering of the series.
Of course, there are Trek books, including children’s texts, and games. I am not that familiar with the current versions of the franchise, so I do not know what the games have evolved into, but the older ones dealt with crushing the Klingon ships. The goal of the games, books, TV shows and movies is to draw the reader into another world, but the Trekkies are already there! They have a clear understanding of the movies and serials. Indeed, an acquaintance of mine knew the lines to swell in my first time in college that we waited for him to say them at key points in the television episodes.
Yet Matrix according to Jenkins did very well with people who did not understand the concepts in the movie.
The complications here are that by drawing upon earlier models by earlier authors, it is hard to tell how much of true authorship is afforded the newer producers of Star Trek and other shows.
The original series has many allusions to older models, some in science fiction and some in earlier models. Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy, the ships doctor and surgeon, reminds me of the relationship between Captain Aubrey of the 18th and 19th century Royal Navy and his Doctor Maturin in the Patrick O’Brian novels. Jack Aubrey is not without major faults, and neither is James Kirk, hardly superhero types.
As for science fiction, the voyages of Captain Kirk’s Enterprise to "strange new worlds" remind me of the one voyage of a spaceship in the science fiction classic, Forbidden Planet, involving a trip to a strange world of Altair IV, with deadly secrets. Robby the Robot served Morbius, the scientist as his advisor, while in Star Trek, that role was embodied in Mr. Spock, a logical, non-emotional Vulcan, serving Kirk.
The powers-that-be in Hollywood will soon restart the original series with new actors. It will be interesting to see if they rely upon tradition.
Collins uses Batman and Bond, and cites them as superheroes. I cannot see Kirk as a superhero, and often he appears to believe he is sent by the powers above to cause pain. Still, in the earlier episodes, he behaves as a tough, no-nonsense commanding officer, while in later shows he is a weak Bond in his attempts to propagate the galaxy. Yet the show persists in the minds and hearts of rabid “Trekkies” (even I am partially infected), thus the lingering of the series.
Of course, there are Trek books, including children’s texts, and games. I am not that familiar with the current versions of the franchise, so I do not know what the games have evolved into, but the older ones dealt with crushing the Klingon ships. The goal of the games, books, TV shows and movies is to draw the reader into another world, but the Trekkies are already there! They have a clear understanding of the movies and serials. Indeed, an acquaintance of mine knew the lines to swell in my first time in college that we waited for him to say them at key points in the television episodes.
Yet Matrix according to Jenkins did very well with people who did not understand the concepts in the movie.
The complications here are that by drawing upon earlier models by earlier authors, it is hard to tell how much of true authorship is afforded the newer producers of Star Trek and other shows.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Ownership and Authorship
What should be authorless? How about the touchtone sounds? (There is a group in Australia who would like to own all the possible patterns of the phone sounds) The sky? The air? These last two may seem ridiculous, but I would not be surprised if an enterprising individual tries to take credit for them. Cordero speaks of making certain trademarks if not authorless, then at least accessible to the public as cultural icons, for example, Barbie. His reasoning is that there are symbols which have come to define our culture, and thus should be available for American citizens to celebrate this culture. The problem is that I would not like to have something that I created taken away and dispersed to unknown billions without compensation, and also, cultural considerations change, and the icons of today may be unknown tomorrow.
I would support various songs such as the Battle Hymn of the Republic, to be authorless. While Cordero's icons are still relatively new, the Hymn has endured.
I could see an ownership model reflecting a fractured authorship, something like condos. One can "rent" or purchase the trademark or copyright for a limited amount of time, so as to allow others to use it. It would almost be like ownership of stock.
I would support various songs such as the Battle Hymn of the Republic, to be authorless. While Cordero's icons are still relatively new, the Hymn has endured.
I could see an ownership model reflecting a fractured authorship, something like condos. One can "rent" or purchase the trademark or copyright for a limited amount of time, so as to allow others to use it. It would almost be like ownership of stock.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Copyright and Authorship
What do you think the ownership rights for authors (individuals and corporations) should encompass?
I woul include all art and music and fiction and other reading, all film production, not to mention video and computer games. I would also include e-books, though I do not see how that could be enforced with effectiveness.
Where ought ownership to rest?
It should rest with the authors, but of course, WHO constitutes the authors? Copyright protections should go to individual authors, but there are corporate ones to consider. Most complex are the situations in which the individual authors, such as Disney, are transformed into corporate entities, and transformed claims for protection.
Are there cultural materials that should not be owned?
I would include libraries and museums, and information about our government that we have a right to know. The problem is that by privatizing this information, someone can deny us this right, at the very least through heavy fees. From what McLeod relates, soon, we would be in a serf-like situation when we will not be able even to go to any parks, as they will be owned privately. We would be restricted in our ability to read as access will be only to those who can pay the privatized libraries. Here easpecially we shouldpractivce Jefferson's"eternal vigilance."
What are the benefits and limitations of our current copyright and trademark laws for individual authors, corporate authors, society?
The authors have use of their work for their lifetimes plus many years after. The limitation is that after that, the copyright protection ends. Then, the power of the corporate authors comes to play as Disney, seeing its most important animals about to fall out of its control, pushed to have the copyrights extended. It would be very difficult for individual authors to do that. The corporate structure has a broader and more stable foundation, and longer reach of resources and networking capabilities. Society would reap benefits of strong expressions of culture, as in Disney, and in the films such as Star Wars. The limitation is that the laws restrict other expressions of culture
Copyright laws fight piracy of music. I am mindful of the churches which lost lawsuits because they changed the lyrics of songs of popular artists. I would sue. Even more so the piracy of entire albums by individuals or groups.
I woul include all art and music and fiction and other reading, all film production, not to mention video and computer games. I would also include e-books, though I do not see how that could be enforced with effectiveness.
Where ought ownership to rest?
It should rest with the authors, but of course, WHO constitutes the authors? Copyright protections should go to individual authors, but there are corporate ones to consider. Most complex are the situations in which the individual authors, such as Disney, are transformed into corporate entities, and transformed claims for protection.
Are there cultural materials that should not be owned?
I would include libraries and museums, and information about our government that we have a right to know. The problem is that by privatizing this information, someone can deny us this right, at the very least through heavy fees. From what McLeod relates, soon, we would be in a serf-like situation when we will not be able even to go to any parks, as they will be owned privately. We would be restricted in our ability to read as access will be only to those who can pay the privatized libraries. Here easpecially we shouldpractivce Jefferson's"eternal vigilance."
What are the benefits and limitations of our current copyright and trademark laws for individual authors, corporate authors, society?
The authors have use of their work for their lifetimes plus many years after. The limitation is that after that, the copyright protection ends. Then, the power of the corporate authors comes to play as Disney, seeing its most important animals about to fall out of its control, pushed to have the copyrights extended. It would be very difficult for individual authors to do that. The corporate structure has a broader and more stable foundation, and longer reach of resources and networking capabilities. Society would reap benefits of strong expressions of culture, as in Disney, and in the films such as Star Wars. The limitation is that the laws restrict other expressions of culture
Copyright laws fight piracy of music. I am mindful of the churches which lost lawsuits because they changed the lyrics of songs of popular artists. I would sue. Even more so the piracy of entire albums by individuals or groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)