2.5 What are commons? In our current consumer/capitalist framework is it possible to even have commons in this context? Is the online environment a digital commons?

Coleman and Dyer-Witheford describe commons as:

“resources that all in a specified community may use, but none can own. They contrast with commodities, exchanged for profit on the basis of privatized possession.” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007)P934

In this context I believe that we do in some ways have commons in our current consumer/capitalist framework although they are more likely to be referred to as public areas and are not for the exclusive use of a “specified community”. We have parks, national parks, roads, and footpaths, crowned land, a water supply, libraries, and public beaches. Although it could be argued that governments own these resources – the governments are voted in by the general public who fund the upkeep of these resources through the paying of taxes. Therefore these resources could be said to be owned by all or none, depending on how you would like to look at it.

There are laws and regulations that govern our public resources or commons: such as speed limits on roads, fire safety guidelines in national parks, summer time water restrictions and laws that stop you staking out your own private little piece of Bondi Beach but they are put in place to preserve the commons, to ensure fairness, and to keep the general public safe when on common ground. Could we have common land without rules and regulations? I would have to say no. Our capitalist society works by one person taking ownership of a resource and trading for the resources of others. We do not live in a society where we only take what we need to survive; we take what we think we can profit most from. Therefore in this day and age our commons are legislated to prevent profit based on “privatized possession”.

Much like the offline world I believe the online environment is largely privatized but there are small chunks of it that could be thought of as commons. The world wide web is one example – this system of hyperlinks and urls enables us to make use of the internet and it is free – anyone can learn and use the code needed to make a website, but putting the website online is once again privatized through ISP’s charging for domain names. If anything Coleman and Dyer-Withefords article shows is that digital commons are not cut and dry. Companies own the intellectual properly rights to code, characters and the visual style of games. They may embrace the public playing on their turf or they may forbid people from using their code or characters to create new content entirely. In either case the companies still have IP rights over the content, and can choose to litigate at any time they see fit which sends mixed messages, blurring the line between commons and profitable privatization.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Images and Referencing the Remediation project

LINK TO NESSA'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK

In an effort to not infringe copyright, I have created some of my own images for Nessa's little black book

I have uploaded them here so I can link to them in the HTML code in Nessa's blog

THE BLOG DESIGN

 The blog design and the sticky tape frame for my images was created by  Templates Block and is Licenced under creative commons as follows:

"Blogger Template by:

Templates Block - Free Custom Blogger templates for Blogger/blogspot blogs.

http://www.templatesblock.com/

**********************************************************************

License:  This free Blogger template is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits both personal and commercial use.

However, to satisfy the 'attribution' clause of the license, you are required to keep the footer links intact which provides due credit to its authors. For more specific details about the license, you may visit the URL below:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" (Evo)

This means that can use and alter the template without worrying about copyright so long as I reference the original creator. The acknowledgment is built into the blog design itself (on the bottom right corner) so this part is all done for me.

THE DRAGON IMAGE on NESSA'S A-Z PAGE

I created the image of the Welsh Dragon myself using Photoshop and my own photograph of the welsh flag. The hearts were created in illustrator and added to Photoshop image. The reason I have chosen the image is because it is the flag of Wales and is tattooed on Nessa's arm.

THE PHOTO OF NESSA on NESSA'S HOME PAGE

The photo of Nessa came from The British Comedy Guide website  and its attributed to "Baby Cow Productions". This image will need to be referenced to ensure it doesn't breach copyright law. I am also using a small part of it for the purposes of education so it should be covered under the US terms fair use , the Australian Fair Dealing exceptions and UK Fair Dealing exceptions.

REFERENCING TEXT

I will also need to cite and reference every entry in the blog. Instructions on how to reference episodes of a TV show APA style can be found on the Coats Library website

 

Baby Cow Productions. gavin_stacey_nessa.jpg. http://www.comedy.co.uk/images/library/people/180x200/g/gavin_stacey_nessa.jpg (accessed 10/10/11). 

 Evo, V. Personal Blog. http://btemplates.com/2010/blogger-template-personal-blog/ (accessed 10/10/11).

 

ASSMT 1: 2.2 Notes on Laws that strangle creativity (Lessig 2007) and Creative Commons (CC)

Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity | Video on TED.com

“We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them pirates . . . is that good?” (Lessig 2007)

 

In this presentation Lessig describes the 20th century as a time where creativity was displaced. Historically our society was based on a "Read Write" culture but in the 20th Century we evolved into a  "Read Only" culture - a culture where we consumed media content but do not participate in the creation of it. (Lessig 2007)

In the 21st century we see this Read Only culture challenged by new media which allows for a return of the Read Write culture or in the terms of Jenkins a "Participatory culture" where we not only consume media but we also create it. We not only "Read" but we also "Write" and we do so by creating user generated content and distributing it through social networking sites such as YouTube. (Lessig 2007)

As Lessig points out, Copyright law blanket covers all unauthorized use of content as criminal and as such dampens the creativity of a generation who creates art from snippets of other peoples content (such as creating vids, mashups or remix). While he acknowledges that copyright law has its place it should be changed to allow for this form of expression and suggests Creative Commons as a pathway towards decriminalization. (Lessig 2007)

In Australia the creator of a work is the copyright owner, (unless there is a signed contractual agreement that states otherwise) - copyright is not something that is applied for, but is something that exists at the time of creation (Ownership of copyright  2006). As such works cannot be copied, reproduced or reused without the creators permission.

There is a Fair Dealings clause that allows people to use snippets of copyrighted material for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing  2008) but this is a legal defense that can be used if sued, it is not a legal right to prevent one from being sued (dangerousnerd 2007).

As Collins states in his article – fair use can be manipulated by large companies who use their media presence and financial advantage to send a message to the general public about sampling their products (Collins 2008). They do so by suing samplers who then need to fork out money to defend themselves under the terms of “fair use”. The large sums media companies sue for put fear into samplers – they can either take down content before it goes to court, or face the possibility of loosing great sums of money in the court system.

Creative Commons on the other hand takes the guess work out of using other peoples content as allows the creator of material to stipulate whether or not it is OK for people to copy, sample, re-use or reproduce a work. It succeeds where fair use fails as it clearly communicates the terms of which the works can be used. There are 6 standard licences, which vary in restrictions. The most relaxed licences allow people reuse, alter and distribute works for both private and commercial purposes while the most restrictive allows only for the sharing of a work. All licences stipulate that the originating creator must be acknowledged (About the Licenses). A comprehensive list can be found on the creative commons website.

Overall I believe creative commons to be a good thing but it is a voluntary system that applies only to those who are willing to share. It does not address the issues of media companies hording content or their manipulation of the legal system to prevent creative re-use of it. Therefore participation by media institutions seem unlikely due the the economic benefit they receive from their current business model.

Although the TV show I am going to remediate (Gavin and Stacey) does not fall under creative commons licensing I should be able to avoid infringing copyright due to fair use. Dangerounerd states in their YouTube video “You cant copyright an idea…you can only copyright the form an idea takes”(dangerousnerd 2007) therefore I am free to remediate the storyline. I can also use small snippets of dialog from the show and change their form from spoken word to written text so long as I reference the source (as you would when writing an essay). Overall I am creating the remediation for educational purposes, which falls within the guidelines of the Fair dealing exceptions of Australian copyright law. If Baby Cow productions (owners of Gavin and Stacey) do try to sue me I should have grounds to win  - so long as I can afford the legal fees in the first place!

About the Licenses. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 9/10/11).

Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11

Lessig, L. 2007. Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity. TED.

Ownership of copyright. 2006. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G58. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 9/10/11).