Tag Archives: copyright

Reflection 1.3 – OLTD 506

Posted on by

Whomever coined the phrase “ignorance is bliss” has not yet read Hengstler (2014) where the author lays out a continuum of FIPPA compliance BC educators can fall under. Ignorance can be very damaging, especially when the privacy of students is in question.

Ignorance is a choice

“Ignorance is a choice Tony…no really it is…” by Jonathan Kellenberg. Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/AVD1. CC BY 2.0. Adapted by Stephanie Boychuk.

The readings for this topic widened my view of what “damaging” could mean in relation to student privacy as well. For example, although I had considered risks associated with identifiability and data storage, I had not really considered the students’ copyright to their work being breached through online posting (Hengstler, 2013). When I post my own work, I usually take the time to add a creative commons license (if appropriate) but am now considering what would be the best course of action for students. In my context, working with faculty who teach adult learners, it would be the students’ choice to apply a licence or not – but they would need to be educated on what their intellectual property rights were and what it would mean to apply a different license to their work.

I also feel the having a specific, drawn out plan to handle potential incidents that occur is necessary, but is also something I had not thought of before (Hengstler, 2013). Even relatively isolated uses of social media – a faculty member using a Google Doc for a formative wiki project for instance – it would be prudent to lay out solutions to potential issues. I believe this is something that could be useful for the entire campus community, and perhaps increase the awareness of and comfort in using these tools.

References

Hengstler, J. (2013). A K-12 primer for British Columbia teachers posting students’ work online. Retrieved from http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/a-k-12-primer-for-british-columbia-teachers-posting-students-work-online/

Hengstler, J. (2014). The compliance continuum: FIPPA & BC educators. Retrieved from http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/the-compliance-continuum-fippa-bc-public-educators/

Summary of Learning for OLTD 505 – Week 6 Blog Post

Posted on by

For my summary of learning, I have remixed a series of video clips from our course readings. Throughout my video clips, I integrated selected quotations from my cohort members, which I feel anchor my main points. I also chose to use a visual metaphor – driving a car – to frame my presentation. The video clips I used for my driving framework are from a 1943 Disney cartoon, “Donald’s Tire Trouble”. I chose to use copyright material to illustrate my points about copyright and remixing. I also chose to use Creative Common’s licensed music in the background of my presentation, to show that I am committed to the ideals of creative commons.

I also set myself a challenge when creating my summary of learning – I did not allow myself to use paid software. Much of the material I have produced for this course has been with the aid of paid software I have access to through my workplace. I felt that it was important to use free software because it is more accessible for future uses, and it provides another resource the rest of the cohort can use as well. If I use materials and software accessible to everyone, it also increases my ability to share and contribute to the cohort.

Please use the link below to view my summary of learning:
https://viutube.viu.ca/public/media/OLTD+505+Summary+of+Learning+Stephanie+Boychuk/0_t3m3mp87

Fans, Free Materials, Copyright and Profit

Posted on by

Something very interesting (and relevant to OLTD 505) happened a few hours ago on Twitter that hit very close to my heart.

Some of you may be familiar with the stellar podcast Welcome to Nightvale (WTNV) (http://commonplacebooks.com/) created and co-written by Joseph Fink (@PlanetofFinks on Twitter). If you aren’t familiar, I won’t go into details, but the podcast is (in my opinion) and exceptionally well written and well produced story in a style reminiscent of H. P. Lovecraft. The podcast is free to download, with no commercials except for plugs for their donation page, plugs for their guest musicians, and plugs for their merchandise at the beginning and sometimes end of the show. I’ve been a big fan for well over a year.

A few hours ago, Joseph Fink posted this on Twitter (edited for language):Joseph_Fink_01

This is interesting for a few reasons. First, the initial reactions of fans:

Joseph_Fink_01a(especially that last one).

Secondly, the conversations the fans of the podcast had after the initial reaction phase was over. I’ve selected a snipet below (orange boxes on the comments I found most engaging):Joseph_Fink_02I really, really like the comment by @alecballin above. I think that this encapsulates my ideas about remixing and read-write culture pretty well. I also really like @PlanetofFinks response – he agrees. This is a case of someone creating something and being perfectly happy for fans to engage with it through art and remixes. He just doesn’t want other people to “cash in” or sell things based on his creation. Which makes the following comment all the more aggravating:Joseph_Fink_02a@PlanetofFinks is not “acting like a movie studio”. I’m not sure if the above fan had read the rest of the conversation, so I’ll resist the urge to make a comment on his reply to the thread. Instead, I wanted to comment on the spirit of his post – content creators engaging with the craft community. WTNV features a grassroots level musician EVERY episode in a special segment called “The Weather”. They have also have guest voices and guest writers (some of which, to my understanding, were fan scripts). I’m not sure who designs their merchandise, but I would be surprised if none of it was designed by their fans. WTNV, and other fan supported podcasts (“We’re Alive” [http://www.zombiepodcast.com/] is another remarkable example) generally take special care to engage with their fans and fan products, or they wouldn’t get the support they do. That doesn’t mean that fans should be allowed to create something and then sell it for profit at conventions or over the internet however. Unless of course …Joseph_Fink_03… they have permission and kick some of the profit back to the creator.

This is where my feelings toward remixing and fan creations get complicated. Do I believe that fans of a free service, who are inspired and create something new, should profit off of it? No … and yes. When I contrast the above example to that of Girl Talk (http://illegal-art.net/girltalk/) from RIP: A Remix Manifesto (http://vimeo.com/8040182), I get myself into murky waters. Girl Talk remixes songs, without clearing copyright. Is that really all that different to fans profiting from their art or other products based on WTNV? In my heart, I don’t think so.

My difference of opinion comes from a feeling more of what is reasonable, versus what is necessarily “right”. If Girl Talk were to pay to clear copyright on his album, he is looking at a bill of about $4.2 billion according to RIP. Is that reasonable? I don’t think so. If the rights holders (and in this specific example, record labels) dropped the cost of sampling, I would be much less divided on Girl Talk. If it was economically reasonable to sample, I would want those samples to be cleared before I considered calling myself a fan (which I am).

On the other hand, companies who create apps or fans who create products based on WTNV and profit from them don’t have to pay ridiculous copyright fees. There are no fees associated with accessing WTNV (unlike music), and some people are taking that to mean it is open to use for commercial purposes.

This brings to mind the conversations we have had on “free” versus “open” material. I am fully aware what I’m talking about in the case of WTNV is “free” and NOT “open” content, but it is interesting to note how blurred those lines can be in the minds of media consumers today. I believe that blurring is due, in large part, to people beginning to dismiss the unreasonable barriers to the use of media, and applying those attitudes to all media – not just commercial media.

It must very be difficult to be a creator of new media today. Clearly, I have mixed feelings about all of this, and much like the registrar of copyrights said in RIP “it depends on whose it is an how upset they are”. In the case of the fans of WTNV, the fact that content is free gives those of us who are fans (and those of us who donate to the show) a small sense of ownership as well – and we will support the creators as much as possible. Much like @NilliliMamboNo5 said above “I think the most us fans can do is ask people to stop.”

Disruption and Cultural Content – Week 1 Blog Post

Posted on by

Point of Clarification: Upon re-reading my post I realize the tone of some sections may be too open to interpretation. I don’t support illegal download and distribution of materials. I simply feel that the illegal downloading and distribution material has increased, in part, to restrictions on content access.

I was hoping to make some time to podcast with my fiancé for my blog post this week, but the timing just didn’t work out. He was one of the reviewers for one of the potential BC Open Textbooks for Chemistry, is writing two chapters for the Open Textbook Project this summer, and may be contributing some videos and other media as well. Hopefully I will be able to sit down with him and record some of his thoughts and experiences being part of this project soon.

Since I won’t be talking about the BC Open Textbook Project, I thought I would talk about some more general thoughts on the free culture movement and copyright.

Instructables LogoI have noticed a shift happening in how people my age think about what and how they contribute to the world at large. I feel that the rise of DIY culture, Maker (sub)culture and the free culture movement are all linked in a mutually supportive way. Without people being willing, and excited about, creating or prototyping and then sharing freely and openly, DIY and Maker culture as movements fall apart. For an example, the website Instructables (1) contains thousands of video and image instructions people have generated. On some instructions there are lively comments thinking of better ways to do things, and many “instructables” build on what others have done. There is truly a growth in networked and open learning happening on the Internet – I just don’t think we are seeing it manifest in the PSE sector in a substantial way. I do feel that this way of looking at learning and creating is a true disruption of education, and that disruption will begin to reveal itself soon.

In a society where people are getting more used to networked, free, sharable and editable products and ideas it is no surprise copyright stakeholders are digging in their heels. The ongoing saga of the music industry is easy to point to as an example. Canada doesn’t have the breadth or depth of the music services and content that is accessible in other countries, in part because we are view as “pirates and thieves”(2) that can’t be trusted with cultural content. The content allowed on Canadian Netflix is another example of restrictions places on content in Canada (I’m reasonably certain I am the only one in the country not using a proxy to get the American content).

As a consumer of cultural content, it drives me crazy that even when I am willing to pay a fee to access content I can’t, just because of where I live. The copyright holders have created a self-fulfilling prophesy, in my opinion. Princess Leia told Governor Tarkin in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope: “The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers” which is a message very applicable to the cultural copyright holders today. People will find a way to get the content they want, so why don’t you give it to them (even if you have to charge them a fee)?shutupandtakemymoney_zps3bbbd52eThe plus side of the seemingly endless copyright legislation issues, is that there are more and more cases of people doing things a little differently. “Indie” creators, makers and artists are fan and crowd funded projects (3). Some artists are even giving things away for free (4) or implementing pay-what-you-can models (5). While this doesn’t represent a true, networked and content-creating open model, it represents another disruption in the way we have been doing things – hopefully leading to bigger and better horizons.

I believe that the world is ready for open and networked learning and creating, and I believe we are starting to move in that direction. I also know there is a lot of disruption happening right now, and the tables have yet to truly turn. I just hope that educators and the PSE industry have the ability to change and thrive when the world shifts.

Links:

(1) http://www.instructables.com

(2) http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/us-claims-nation-pirates-thieves/ (strong language used!)

(3) Pledge Music http://www.pledgemusic.com/, IndieGoGo https://www.indiegogo.com/, and Kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/ are good examples of sites where this is happening

(4) http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/15/us-free-idUSN1543936020080315

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows