Dominique235's Weblog

Copyright Tyranny

dominique235 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:51:58 +0000

In recent years it has become apparent what the consequences of a few changes made to the copyright law can do to one society. In the fall of 2003, a group of Swarthmore college students promoted a political protest of Diebold Electronic Systems, the largest leading name in electronic voting machines for the United States. The Swarthmore students came upon 15,000 or more e-mails and memos stating how there were flaws in the Diebold system software and how these systems were not particularly safe from hackers. Taking into consideration the 2000 elections, how hectic and confusing they were, the students decided the public should know about these malfunctions.

Though the students did post the information on their website for the public’s eyes, Diebold soon sent a letter to the students stating they were charged with a copyright infringement and they had to take the material off their website. This infringement was in accordance with the D.M.C.A., or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law which regulates copyrighted material or intellectual property on the Web. The students removed the information from their site and were silenced by one law. After sometime of fighting for their rights and much negative publicity for the Diebold Company, Diebold decided not to sue the Swarthmore students.

Many are turning to the new copyright law provisions to protect every aspect of their works, discoveries etc. Along with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act there was the Copyright Term Extension which extended the life of past and present copyrights by 20 years. The extension of the copyrights gave way to more debate by the Copy Left about how people, or one person, can horde ideas and information from the possession of others. The “Copy Left” or those opposed to the newer provisions to the copyright laws, realize that piracy of music, movies, etc. is an issue but they find that trying to suppress or subdue the efforts is only causing more severe restrictions on what is and is not acceptable with copyright. Copyright was made to give proper respect, dues and compensation to the creator/discoverer of a work/find for a limited period of time. The only problem with the new restrictions is, the Copy Left says, that they copyright life keeps being extended and items are not distributed into the public domain and that is taking away people’s freedom and ultimately reducing creative ingenuity altogether.

The ideology some people have is that copyrights never expire and information should never enter the public domain; this is not only viewed as greedy by others but insane. The public domain or “cultural commons” is a place for people to view others creative and intellectual property and sample or draw inspiration from its uniqueness or originality. Now, people have to ask permission to use words, phrases, books, music, movies and more instead of just being able to draw upon them freely. The life of a copyright lasts for 70 years for an individual and 95 years for a corporation. The “limited period of time” for a copyright just seems to keep being extend, and Congress has the power to do so if deemed necessary.

William Fisher, a director at the Berkman Center, has spent years creating an alternate plan for compensation for the entertainment industry so piracy will not be such an issue. Fisher is working on a modified version of the artist advocacy system, a system which over sees that artists get paid when their music is preformed, recorded, etc. He states, that if we monitor how much an artist’s material or work is used then however much money is required for payment can come from taxes on items like, DVDs, CD-burners and other like things.

I believe that the copyright laws are getting to be crazy. If everything is copyrighted from the point where it is “fixed into a tangible medium,” where is creativity supposed to come from? If things could not be drawn upon or used freely at some point (after a copyright expires) then how could we ever say that our society is advancing in science, music, art, politics, etc. and making things better if we cannot even revise, remix, reiterate, or revamp pre-existing material. I think that piracy is the lesser of two evils than taking away certain freedoms from the general public via copyrights. The web is a hard thing to monitor, but at the same time we should be looking for the most efficient, strategic, and least restrictive ways to make it work for us. Not just say ‘make a law’ every time something doesn’t work how it was intended to. I think we are on the right track but some might try to take it too far; I believe people need to measure how much creativity, ingenuity and originality this country operates on, and decide if these laws are really worth what they will be sacrificing.

Cyberbullying

dominique235 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:26:18 +0000

The society we live in today has always had its fair share of issues with harassment and bullying. Kids being victimized at school by other children taking their lunch money; adults being pressured at work or blackmailed. This reoccurring problem has found new mediums to work through. With technology the way it is now, people can just send an e-mail, call, or instant (or text) message with the help of a computer, cell phone or PDA. What problem does this new technology pose? Cyberbullying. People once being harassed or bullied on a more personal level are now being pursued by bullies who do not have to see or feel their victims fear, anger or emotions in general. Not only are these new mediums less personal but they are even harder to trace than conventional bullying. Once a person had to write a letter, send a note, or talk to their victim face to face. Now the internet and personal devices, such as cell phones, obscure where or who the harassment or threat is from.

If a person wanted to start a nasty rumor about someone else, all they would have to do is consult their e-mail account; and most e-mail applications have free access due to the support of advertisers. So, instead of the “he said-she said” in a school or a work place, one could type their message from a false or made-up e-mail address and send it to many people at a time, causing much embarrassment to the victim with little expense to the bully. These forms of non-physical intimidation, in certain cases, are scarier than what they would be in person.

For the most part people grow out of their bullying ways. But now with easier ways to bully and less chance of being caught the temptation is still there. The people who are being threatened can protect them selves by making their information harder to attain. This can be done by having a private number, unlisted e-mail or regular address, and not putting too much information in a blog or online community profile. They can also avoid hostile conversations (so as not to escalate the situation into something more severe), document conversations, e-mails, text messages, and voicemails for proof of harassment, and if the situation persists or worsens after various attempts to stop the bullying the victim can report to their local police department or FBI branch for federal support.

I know that cyberbullying occurs everyday and is a horrible burden for those who are being afflicted by it. I believe this age of technology is wonderful and fascinating with a million pro’s but also many con’s as well. As technology progresses and people do not have to communicate directly with in person conversations, we as humans are being desensitized. Not having to look someone in the eye and confront them takes the pressure off of us when we would be feeling nervous or angry or upset, which might keep us from bullying, teasing or threatening each other. New devices make life easier and at the same time a little more complicated than we expected for children and adults alike. This is a sad truth but a truth all the same, technology is amazing and will continue to amaze but there are some serious repercussions for something so great, and cyberbullying happens to be one of them. I think it’s a very good idea for parents to monitor younger children on the internet and on cell phones. It not only allows the parents to monitor what the child receives but also what they send. Maybe if more parents start to do this even though technology is advancing, children, who one day will be adults, will maybe not stop cyberbullying completely but will have taken a step in the right direction.

Google as Big Brother

dominique235 — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:04:58 +0000

With the vast expansion of web technology, search engines have become a big part of how people, all over the world, find websites. There are about four search engines that have the equipment and the knowledge to create in depth crawl cycles on a routine basis, which allows for more accurate searches and updates. The main search engines that many rely on are Google and Yahoo. Yahoo owned Google, up until February of 2004, and still owns other engines like: Alltheweb, Alta Vista, Overture, and Inktomi. Yahoo is monetizing the search engine industry, which maybe good or bad depending on how they can mange all of their search engines and keep up with their primary Yahoo engine updates to rival Google. Even though Google has 200 million searches a day, Yahoo’s index is on the same level as the Google index, with only twenty percent overlap in the Top 100 for each engine search. The only difference in whose search engine is more advanced now, is how in depth and thorough the crawl is.

Microsoft has now developed and created a search engine and their own crawler. If Google does not continue with deeper crawls, while Microsoft is experimenting with a more thorough cycle, Microsoft’s search engine could run Google out of its top spot, with Microsoft essentially doing what they did to Netscape. Many companies have the knowledge of how to build a search engine today, which is potentially a threat to Google, Yahoo and all the rest who are leaders in the search engine world. The only way for a company to have the best and most popular engine depends on how much time and energy they are willing to put into a persistent, thorough, and regular crawl.

Google is indefinitely a chief leader in the search engine business, with seventy-five percent external referrals from websites, and on top as a search engine in general. Though this may be true Google still has some major competition and some major decisions to make in the near future. Google has gone from being a search engine with no advertising to one with much revenue in advertisements. When a person searches a keyword or phrase or non-ad content, material, etc. advertisements usually appear on the right side in light of the key phrase search. Google is making a lot of money from advertisers buying pixeled real-estate on their search engine pages.

Advertising on the web is a struggle and sometimes a problem. Yahoo is also interested in the wave of new advertisement revenue, along with the possibility of Microsoft. With all of the money and business geared toward all commercial and commercial business sites, these top search engines might become less involved with the non-commercial portion of the web. Websites like org, edu, and gov domains are not providing direct income for Google or Yahoo, but are also key in having a complete web and attracting as many users as possible. Advertising sometimes goes as far as spamming, which is slowly becoming a problem for the web.

Another large problem lies with privacy on the web and privacy of information on the web. This started out as protection for users, webmasters and people alike, but now with the daunting memory of 9/11 and in a world of terrorist acts the government wants to use it to monitor for terrorism. Google has an entire database of information from, for, and about users and with the government’s attempts of surveillance on the web; it is vital how they decide to treat that sensitive information.

Google operates a perfectly adept search engine but still has many kinks and problems that need to be worked out; such as page ranking (which is believed should be based on the information on the webpage not the popularity of it), their “immortal cookies” which do not expire until 2038, what they record and why they need it (such as having no retention policies), hiring people with security clearances to sell their assets to, updating their spy ware toolbar without users knowledge, illegal cache copy of information (webmasters do not like), monopoly on external referrals, and the government/privacy issue.

I believe Google is a great search engine and resource. I use Google up to four to seven times on a daily basis and get very accurate and adequate results for the most part. I did know that they were a one of the main search engines used today but what I did not realize was that they retain so much information, without any kind of retention policy, and update their toolbar every time I visit their page without my consent. On the topic of Google as “Big Brother” I think that they are well on their way with how things are being handled and run for the search engine at the present. In order for Google to be user friendly and potentially not have things corporately come crashing down on them with an overabundance of pressure on privacy and security issues, Google has to start making changes on some of their policies or absence of policies, and soon.

Photo I Like…

dominique235 — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:41:00 +0000

I love this picture because A) I like the movie Monster’s Inc. and B) because Pixar Animation is AMAZING!!! I hope to become an animator for Disney/Pixar Studios after college. I can’t wait to get the basics down so I can create a new world to get lost in! : )

Net Neutrality

dominique235 — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:32:17 +0000

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the term coined to convey that a network, in this case the Internet, allows its users to navigate it freely and does not have any particular restrictions regulated by a single person or corporation. This freedom of the Internet is facing definite opposition by network operators such as AT&T and Verizon. These companies and companies like these are attempting to prioritize the content and services that are spanning their networks. That is to say that the company would charge a fee or extra fee rather, to individual websites in order to be delivered to users faster than other websites or a competitor’s website. Although that is the direction our society is heading in, there are still people attempting to preserve net neutrality. Two such people are: Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan. Snowe and Dorgan are campaigning for their re-introduction of the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” which did not pass the Senate in 2006.

The “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” states that the Internet should be in the hands of the users who navigate it, not the network operators or gatekeepers who over see it. This discreet issue has only surfaced in the past few years to become something of a weight on the Senate’s shoulders. This is because telecommunications executives have complained that they should reserve the right and authority over their own network to charge first-rate fees for first-rate positions and faster delivery of sites. Still, some were outraged by this venture; these Internet freedom lobbyists, not only ranged from people like Google Vice President Vint Cerf but to actresses like Alyssa Milano. Even other Internet companies and consumers were furious about the suggestion and pursuit of incorporating fees with this free establishment. The Snowe-Dorgan legal representation for net neutrality, embraces that network operators are prohibited from blocking or not granting access to content and services on the Internet. Their preservation act also discloses that any prioritization of content or services, applications, etc. should be done for all types of that related content and services, applications, etc.–and at no cost. The Snowe-Dorgan bill also suggests that all broadband companies are required to present their customers with a standalone broadband option. Telecommunication companies are criticizing the re-introduction of Snowe and Dorgan’s bill because of the financial prospects involved. Yet, people like Jeannine Kenney make it known that all consumers should be able to have high-speed Internet connections and services for reasonable prices. The “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” could possibly have a slight advantage to being passed by the Senate this year because of the majority of Democrats in the Senate at the present.

Hopefully, this bill will be passed in order to ensure the freedom of the Internet. I believe that net neutrality is a difficult and sensitive subject because there is no precedent for something with so much technological freedom at stake and so much potential corporate income. Users should be allowed an equal opportunity at having the free Internet resource for uniqueness and individuality and still have the Internet companies each receive equal connection speed and space. I don’t think it is right to allow one website, like a huge corporate website, to take priority over another website such as a smaller, more personal or entertainment oriented website. Net neutrality has been effective for years and is only now challenged by those trying to optimize revenue sources, which I believe just makes greed to be synonymous with money.