Blog 9/27 - Protocols and Copyrights

In class on Monday, we discussed and review the term protocol in relation to back before technology and now. Protocol, as a term can be broken down as a definition of a set of rule, or how thing should be.

 Within our small group discussion, we discussed the various examples of protocol in history. The use of the alphabet and mathematics create an absolute rule that we follow. The way letters and numbers work together are heavily relied upon the protocol.  Protocol now, in today’s age is much more complicated, especially in copyrights.

Today, there are much more protocols to events and actions because of how complicated information and media has become. Citing resources, creating contents, using software, there’s always a form of instruction that you have to follow. This arguably makes copyright a more uptight process for both the creator and the users. Should there be a line between referencing a work and a full blown right attribute page? Would fan art and remixes need to get the permission from the creator before using their work? Some people say that it would depend on how much of it is being use. Without protocol, most people would just take someone’s work and not give them credit because they feel that they didn’t use the original work that much. If everyone could decide for themselves how much is enough, many content creator would be on the lighter end of the scale. This is why protocols and rules are necessary for when attributing, to make it fair for both sides.

There are many references to attribute contents. A good example is the Purdue Owl. A good website for writers to look up the proper way to cite a source. There are also many different citation style such as MLA, Chicago, and APA. 

  For music, sounds, and videos there are the Creative Commons that makes attributing easier because the “rule” is stated depending on what the creator want with their work. Original contents can range anywhere from personal work only to even commercial uses so it is a very open way to share contents legally. 

9/20 - Free Style - DRM

This is part of my final research for Engl 402. I feel that the subject has a lot to do with DTC 356 on digital right management that I decided to post some write up.

Digital rights Management (DRM) is a solution for many entertainment distribution companies toward piracy and digital rights infringement. There are some potential positive aspects when going with DRM, in term of keeping control of contents and ease of distribution.  However, currently there are also many issues with digital right management such as copyrights, content dictation, and monopolization of contents.

            According to sources, there are many mainstream publishers such as Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, and Atari that rely on DRM technologies to limit access to their software. By requiring online authentication, these companies can control and limit the users log in by setting restriction such as online check in, and limited installations. From a business perspective, large game corporation see DRM as a solution to a large problem; game updates are made easier, sales suffrage would be minimized, and game distribution is simple. However, there’s also many issue of DRM that makes it unappealing for other gaming companies. Digital right managements have been the villain to gamers ever since it was introduced. Complications such as server failure, lack of a stable internet connection, and content control bring gamers to a distrustful attitude toward DRM and the companies that uses it.

            A solution that may be possible to remove digital rights and keep gaming companies satisfied with their content distribution is to create a new and improved way to deliver games to user that rewards them for buying the games. Some independent company gives extra game contents for users who preorder the games that would motivate consumer from buying it instead of turning toward piracy. Companies like Valves, creator of successful games such as Portal, Half Life, and Left 4 Dead projects along with CD Projekt, creator of The Witcher 2 had established themselves against DRM. Instead, these companies believe that it is more important to build loyalty from the consumers by creating good contents and delivering memorable experience rather than setting restriction against the users. I agree more with these companies’ stances because it builds them a fan base large enough to support their creation without worries. For these companies, the reputation is more important and coming up with way to gain the user’s trust is essential for a company’s succession.

            The solution to reward users and enhance their experience, while removing DRM will benefit both gamers and gaming corporation in the long run. User will have an easier time accessing the content and companies would not have to bother or spend resource with stopping piracy.

Blog 9/4 - Copyrights

With the comment from Bill Gates regarding copyright communist, I think it’s very interesting that he put the responsibility of intellectual rights on the individuals, though being influenced by the economic view of the software industry I don’t blame him. Being the former president of Microsoft Corporation, Bill must have had ton experience with software piracy. Those who believe that there should be no incentive to produce their own intellectual property are often labeled as a copyright communist. I don’t think that Bill himself, called Lessig a copyright communist because he have no problem with intellectual copyright but are more worry about the effect of government and economic hold of the intellectual property.

The people that in my opinion fit into different criteria of copyrights activists are:

1. Copyright Communists
People who believe that all intellectual property should be free to use without incentive. The product should be for the general good and everyone should be able to use it with no prerequisite.

2. Copyright Liberals
People who believe that individuals should have control to their intellectual property and that whenever someone uses their idea or product, permission need to be obtained. They believe that more ideas will flourish with the means of incentive and competition to do well.

3. Copyright Conservatives
People who believe that intellectual properties ideally should be share but also trust in the rule set by the government and creative common that intellectual property to give credits and recognition to the creator when it is due.

4. Copyright Fundamentalists
This is very similar to copyright conservatives. The individual’s ideas that they believe in intellectual property will probably not change very often even as technology grew. Fundamentalists usually firmly believe in the foundation of their set given rule such as copyright laws.

5. Copyright Libertarians
I think that this is very similar to the copyright liberals beside the fact that their view can change when the world become more progressive and more people are sharing their ideas together. The main goal itself is to make information known to the public for the greater good but still support the artist.

illustration used by creative commons - ideas by Mathias Klang