Read-Write Culture...What do you think?

     I had an interesting week.  In my Computer Literacy class, we are discussing copryrights, mashups and such.  When are artists being overtaken by the 'free sharing' culture of the Internet?  Are they losing money?  What is really happening out here in cyberspace?  Well, this was my discussion this week.  We will see what responses I get from my fellow classmates.  Meanwhile, put your two cents in.  What do you think about this issue?

MY TAKE ON THE ISSUE:
  
    Creative expression is our culture and has been for many years. Lawrence Lessig, an author and Professor of Law at Harvard University certainly thinks so. In his video, Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity, he uses a few humorous and very true stories about John Philip Souza, Lord Blackwell and the broadcasting industry to illustrate that our culture has gone from Read-Write to Read Only. (Leesig, 2007). Check it out!

Larry Leesing - Laws that Choke Creativity


     This is important in today’s world, because in the 21st century we are trying to return (due to the Internet) to a Read Write culture. User generated content is everywhere with the click of a mouse. You Tube, UStream, Flickr, Renderosity, Vimeo, and so many more rely on user generated content or sharing as it were. We were taught as children to share and share alike and oddly, this concept has extended now to border-line (if not completely) pirated copies of mash-ups and copyright violations that exploded all over the Internet for the past six or more years. The laws are definite about it. Copyrights protect artists from losing their rights to their property, legally. However, the users don’t seem to care about that little law anymore. It is now called Creative Commons and copyrights are being updated to fit our newer read write culture. I personally like the idea of Creative Commons and protecting creative expression. Quite a conundrum, I’ll admit, but it is necessary to find a way that people, all people, can express their creativity (without profit) and provide entertainment to others. So, in conclusion, yes, yes, yes, we should have read write culture and creative expression without the threat of law suits.

     Moving into a read write culture however will not be easy for companies and artists who want to (and should) make money for their creations. Demand and supply is our capitalist culture and has been for many decades. I remember when I was growing up and showing a song from my new record to a friend was very exciting. I would even dream up ways for the song to mean something to the characters I created in my head and added lyrics to it also. Not to mention, once we could record those songs, I gave them to others and recorded them myself from others. Was I pirating? Yes, of course I was and so were my friends. Back in the 1980s when we were doing this, though, it wasn’t on a global scale. It was in a house and we knew about it. We didn’t worry that the record companies would knock on our door and demand money for that music. As a matter of fact, I can honestly say I never even thought about it. It was sharing – like we had been taught by our parents. They always said: ‘Share your toys with your friends.’ We just shared our new toys and today the kids are sharing theirs. Is it bad for the artists and the companies? Maybe, but again I harken back to those sharing days of ‘old and one thing rings true. I listened to an album or song by an artist my friend showed me, I recorded it, and yes, I even went out and bought the next album sometimes because I didn’t want to wait. This type of sharing today opens up big worlds of trouble to those artists, since I can download a song, do a mash-up with a video to it and put it up on You Tube. Now, I’m a pirate. Believe me, if I had recorded a song back in the 80s and did the same things (using unbelievable slow means to do so), I would still have been pirating. It didn’t change, now we know everyone does it and with better, faster, more efficient software. Here’s the real question: If I started to like that artist because someone shared a song with me, is that good or bad for the artist?

     Of course, it isn’t that simple. Mash-ups are changing the intellectual property rights in a very real way. We are in a user generated content culture or ‘read write’ whether the law has caught up or not. The craze is not ending and people are not stopping. It seems to be the law now that needs to refine its thinking, not the users. We haven’t rethought it since I was a kid. I think we are in the midst of a revolution with creativity, imagination, good or bad driven by the user. The channels have been opened and a flood of material just keeps coming. Creative Commons Licensing has introduced a way to protective our creativity and our work, but it isn’t the only solution. Digital Right Management (DRM) seems to have been the answer for movie and music companies for the past few years, but it, too, doesn’t seem to be a solution. Itunes announced back in 2009 that it is DRM free and will upload older songs as such, as well as provide those songs at a discount for people who have previously downloaded them. (Breen, 2009). This is an enormous break-down of the system for DRM. It also brings up the question posed here in this discussion to us: Should DRM’s be utilized? In my opinion, simply no. Again, it is not a simple issue. However when researching DRM technology and what is happening in the world today it was very interesting what I found out. DRM is installed on OS platforms, such as Vista to run Blu-Ray and HDTV technology. I don’t know how extensive Microsoft has placed DRM into Vista, however I do know that DRM is being ignored and overwritten. There are cracks available easily online (and illegally), as well as YouTube videos which actually explain how to convert DRM music into MP3’s (just as illegal).

     The revolution online is very large and very involved within our society today. It seems not many think twice about sharing a file, song, video, or doing mash-ups. DRM should be eliminated and it should be accepted that we have (and have been for a few years) a Read-Write culture. The Internet and software applications are the tools, but the people have made it into an ever-growing, changing, communicating, global platform for creativity, imagination and sharing. If the companies are waiting for this revolution to go backwards, I think they will be extremely disappointed and in turn, will be guilty of what happened with ASCAP in 1945 when they lost the battle with broadcasting. (Leesig, 2007). The people already revolted. I challenge everyone to look at this revolution of creativity as an opportunity instead of something lawyers, courts, and corporations can attack.

     I have to say that these discussions could spark a deep, even heated, debate if anyone wants to get involved. Creative Commons is here, so the read write culture has won one battle. Interestingly enough, this argument comes up when the ones on YouTube that become ‘celebrities’, make money and go on national talk shows promoting their material, which is obviously infringing on the artist’s copyright.


References:
Breen, C. (2009, Apr 7). DRM-free ITunes: What it means for you. PC World. Retrieved from
     http://www.pcworld.com/article/162732/drmfree_itunes_what_it_means_for_you.html

TED (Producers). (2007, Mar). Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity [Videorecording]. Retrieved from
     http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html


Until next time...

Adult Development Theories, Education, and Waiting for Superman to save us all...

            This past week we learned about Adult Developmental Theories.  Erik Erickson, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Sigmund Freud and many others were a part of it.  First, I would like to set forth something about my beliefs.  I choose Lev Vygotsky as my theorist that I can most identify with.  Here is a section of my discussion about him from class:

Lev Vygotsky, creator of the Sociocultural Theory of development felt discovering the zone of proximal development, and utilizing it in education was the best way to teach children. “The difference between the level of solved tasks that can be performed with adult guidance and help and the level of independently solved tasks is the zone of proximal development.”[i]  The theory was developed during war torn Russia in the 1920s.  He “believed social interaction and culture led to the best cognitive development. Vygotsky wanted to know where a child could be; not where a child is developmentally.” (Ch 1, pg. 15)  His theory also introduces the concept of ‘scaffolding’, where a teacher or mentor gives assistance to a child to complete a task, but does not do more than is necessary.  His theory opened up the pathways to schools in Russia to educate their children based on these principles. However, it was suppressed under Stalin’s Rule. Even in adult development we can see Vygotsky’s work.  Each task that we learn for a new job or even in returning to school emphasizes the need for ‘scaffolding’.  We build upon our skills by being mentored or taught by others.  Jerome S. Bruner, a social psychologist who became involved with education in the 1960s, was influenced by Vygotsky's concept of "scaffolding.”  He developed a new theory of cognitive development through the MACOS (Man: A Course of Study) project, bringing Vygotsky’s work to America in a new theory.

Vygotsky’s work of ‘scaffolding’ and the zone of proximal development is exactly what I believe should be the first priority of education.  Today, the educational system, at early ages ‘teaches to the tests.’  I find this concept frustrating.  Since many students will not reach their potential due to the gross lack of misjudgment in using this method.  Vygotsky believed in the potential of a student, not merely ‘where they are now’, but rather ‘where can they be’.  Education has changed dramatically. When I was in school during the 70s and 80s the way we learned was much different than my daughter experienced.  While I was rewarded for my accomplishments with Advanced Placement and Honor courses providing a level of challenge reaching my potential, her high school removed all of these courses due to budget cuts.  The other big factor in education today is what I call (and many psychologists in the field) ‘over diagnosis.’  Many children are being diagnosed with learning disabilities, particularly Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when they may be simply not challenged, and therefore ‘bored’ of their school work.  This is a sad fact in today’s educational world.  ADHD soared in the mid-90s. “The 700% increase in psycho stimulant use that occurred in the 1990s justifies concern about potential over diagnosis and inappropriate treatment of child behavior problems.” [ii] Thus, creating an environment where everyone, including children have a label, but I ask, is it accurate or is it the product of over diagnosis? Vygotsky would see the potential in a child and work through ‘scaffolding’ to reach it.  We seem to see a problem in American children and work towards medication to get rid of it.

            Having said that, what do you think?  Is Vygotsky the way to go?  Or should we continue to teach our children within the education system’s version of where they are now, not where they could be?

            I find the system of education extremely frustrating today as indicated above.  There is so much need and room for improvement.  I was informed by one of my friends that a new documentary Waiting for Superman has come out in theaters.  I am anxious to see this film and what they have to say about education, who’s to blame, and what can be done. Also, I found a BBC news clip about Finland, yes, Finland.  Apparently they have the best educational systems in the world.  Interestingly enough, they use ‘scaffolding’ in it.  Here’s that clip: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8601207.stm

            Here is the trailer about the new documentary, Waiting for Superman:  http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/  Enjoy!  

            Here is a review on the film also (in case you were interested):  http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2021951,00.html

            Until next time…

---

[i]Daniels, Harry (Author). Introduction to Vygotsky.  London, GBR: Routledge, 1996. p 172. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10057539&ppg=185

[ii] Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health: http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html