Class Blog on WebLearn - Assignment Example

WEEK 2 There is no doubt that new media technologies have changed the way people relate to each other. Where once the increasingly metropolitan lifestyle tended to isolate people socially (as compared to the small communities with its home-town familiarity), new media has created bridges where people relate to people in a manner that is at once personal and en masse. That there is a new empowerment involved is undoubted. We are all aware of the marketing power of blogs, boosting advertising and sales at an intensity not possible before, and at reasonable cost. Four years ago this new capability was harnessed by millions of small and medium scale entrepreneurs who were able to reach a widely expanded market at a fraction of the cost of conventional advertising by print or media (Gehi, 2006). Like all powerful instruments, however, there is always potential for abuse. All parents know and fear the fact that new media brings as much chance for mischief and even harm, such as “the issues raised by the use of information and communication technologies in sexual violence and the distribution of unauthorised sexual images” (Powell, 2010:76). When their own generation comprised the adventurous youth some 20 or 30 years ago, today’s parents were under the constant guidance of parents who screened what movies they went to, what television shows to watched, and publications they read. It was because these media were for the most part impersonal – that is, commonly shared by many – and to which access was limited to a certain time and place. Not so the new media, which is conveyed by devices that are highly private such as one’s mobile or laptop, is accessible to the youth 24 hours a day seven days a week, and is for the most part concealed from the attention and even the knowledge of parents. But where the potential for evil exists, there is also the potential for good. New media, like all media, is technically just an instrument or channel; its merits are dictated by the use to which it is put. For instance, the Pope’s Message for 2009 encourages priests to build on the potential of the new media to ‘‘permit the almost instantaneous communication of words and images across enormous distances and to some of the most isolated corners of the world’’ (Tighe, 2010:18). New media’s potential for harm should be balanced by its use for doing good. WEEK 4 In copyright law, originality is the central theme, and in seeking to define it one would try to understand the process of “human evolution, thinking, innovation and creativity.” The difficulty with applying the law is that the concepts of originality is as diverse and numerous as the number of artists, writers, and composers that seek recourse to legal protection. Inspite of all its uncertainties, the notion of originality is the most important concept in copyright law because it is the standard or measure which determines “productions of the human spirit” which is what copyrights protect and by which the material acquires the status of “work”. At the same time, a definition for the concept of “originality” cannot be found in international treaties nor in most national laws, despite reliance upon it in determining potential infringement of a copyright (Judge & Gervais, 2009). All persons, without exception, resort to copyright in order to protect their rights as creator of an intellectual product. What a Creative Commons license does is to try to protect that copyright online. While the intention is good, the protection offered by Creative Commons does not automatically have the mandate of law. How copyright and Creative Commons fit together is the subject of much controversy since Creative Commons departs from conventional copyright law such that many questions exist in the minds of the public. Several people have expressed their concern that Creative Commons license does not properly address the real issues about copyright. One of the most telling questions asked (and answered) in the FAQ site is the query about whether the Creative Commons license is equivalent to registering one’s copyright in the conventional regulatory agencies. The truth is that Creative Commons license availers are not automatically protected by municipal copyright laws, as the measure was not passed by the legislatures of these countries. It appears that Creative Commons licenses may do some good – at least it is better than nothing. However, it must be kept in mind that what may appear to be a violation of a Creative Commons license is not equivalent to infringement of copyright. The second is a right that may be pursued by an action in court, the first is not. Unless the legislature of a country officially adopts the Creative Commons license as an integral part of their laws, the license could afford the claimant little relief by way of the courts. WEEK 7 India is the third country, next to Brazil and Germany, to have requested Google to remove what it considered unsavoury messages in its content, particularly You Tube. Together with this were requests for data which asked Google to supply information about certain Google user accounts or products, primarily on criminal matters. India is not alone in this: similar requests for information originate from Brazil, the United States, and the United Kingdom. (See story here.) Before China occupied the top position on censorship. However, in December, Google’s infrastructure became the target of a successful cyberattack originated within the country, apparently to gain access to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Many suspect the Chinese government, specially in light of their frequent requests for private data pertaining to suspected Chinese “subversives”. Having had enough, Google has decided to end its contract of service with China (Schiller, 2010). Prior to service termination, efforts of the government in China to control its citizens’ increasing Internet access have focused upon the use of social networking websites. Information was censored about riots and protests within the country, blocking websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Blogger. The Chinese government furthermore required users to register their true identities before commenting on news articles, in effect ensuring that authors of so-called “subversive comments” can be identified and held personally accountable (Archie, 2009). The issue has been taken by some – or made to appear by the governments concerned – that the reason for censorship was to take out harmful cultural elements that are inconsistent with the country’s own culture. Censorship was thus purportedly being undertaken in the name of the protection of society, when in truth – at least in the case of China – it was to defeat the cause of human rights. This is not true only of centralist-socialist countries, however. As Google has terminated China’s business, the US is now the leading censor of internet content material in terms of requests for user information and data removal from Google. The issue put forth by the blog is thus off-tangent to the true issue. From the point of view of culture, assuming that a person were of major age, he should be free to discern what is right or wrong for him, especially in cultural matters, as culture is not proprietary. The bigger issue is suppression of the right to speak, and this cannot be subject to censorship. Follow-up Comments: Week 6 It is easy to understand how the composition of databases could greatly aid in the facilitation of certain transactions. This is a great help, particularly in the case of repeat purchases, returns, or fulfilment of warranty of items previously bought. Databases are helpful in large universities by providing quick information to both students and administration in the matter of enrolments, payment of fees, accomplishment of courses and computation of grades. Banks, in particular, are benefited by knowing background information on their clientele, thus reducing risk of being made to answer for unpaid bills. There is a limit, though, to how much private information should be stored in a database, and moreso, how much information should be allowed to be provided to other parties. There is a thin line between storing information necessary for legitimate purposes, and intrusion of privacy. All database managers should have a clear perception of the difference. Week 7 When one looks at blogs and other entries in the social networks online, it may be reasonable in some cases to consider the censoring of content that is available on the internet. We are not speaking here of little children whose access to the internet could very well be controlled by their parents, but of the youth in school, anywhere from the elementary to college levels. One instance is when such material could influence young minds towards violent behaviour and the use of guns, which adolescents and young adults are able to gain access to in easily available online resources. It was not too long ago that news about school shootings were spread over the broadsheets’ headlines and our online news webpages. One need only remember Columbine and Virginia Tech to understand the danger that access to improper online content could do, enough reason to exercise a level of censorship. References Archie, J 2009 ‘Freedom of Expression around the World: CHINA’, World Literature Today, Nov/Dec2009, Vol. 83 Issue 6, p62 Creative Commons 2010 Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed 20 April 2010 Facebook 2010 Techdirt: Is Creative Commons Bad for Copyright? Accessed 20 April 2010 Gehi, D 2006 ‘How to Harness the Marketing Power of Blogs’, Entrepreneur, 25 March 2006. Accessed 20 April 2010 Judge, E F & Gervais, D 2009 ‘Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing Notions of Originality in Copyright Law’, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p375-408 Kurczy, S 2010 ‘US, Brazil lead Google’s Top 10 censorship list; China off the chart’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 April. Accessed 21 April 2010 Monte, L D 2010 ‘India third in seeking to censor Google’, Rediff Business. Accessed 20 April 2010 Powell, A 2010 ‘Configuring Consent: Emerging Technologies, Unauthorised Sexual Images and Sexual Assault’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Apr2010, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p76-90 Schiller, K 2010 ‘Google Taking Leave of China’, Information Today, Apr2010, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p17 Sullivan, M 2010 ‘Safety Monitory: How to Protect Your Kids Online’, Security Software Systems. Accessed 20 April 2010 Tighe, P 2010 ‘Go Forth and Blog’, Priest, May2010, Vol. 66 Issue 5, p18-23 Read More