On Free Speech and Nazism

Free speech is commonly cited as being something fundamentally American – very few nations around the world, including other Western strongholds, permit their citizens absolute freedom in this regard. Take, for example, Germany. Present day Germany explicitly prohibits any outward manifestation of Nazi sentiments or affiliations. Nazism and Adolf Hitler left an indelible mark of shame upon the nation, and for that reason, Germany has resolved to purge it from her lands. Are such motions justified?
In brutally murdering nearly 12 million people, Nazi Germany permanently scarred the countless millions who lost loved ones. Germany's prohibition of Nazism may easily be justified as a small measure designed to protect those who have suffered so very much. In the United States, a country renowned for her freedom and equality, racially charged, incendiary groups are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment defense of freedom of speech. Which is correct – Germany in suppressing hate groups, or the United States in protecting them?
In developing an answer to this query, it is first necessary to explore major instances of first amendment right suspension in the United States. President Adams authorized the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, and President Wilson successfully sought the passage of the Sedition Act of 1918. In both instances, the federal government sought to limit and make punishable by force of law any speech or press that would threaten morale during times of war. Such limitations are nigh inconceivable to 21st century Americans. In restricting freedom of speech, the federal government is merely empowering itself. In robbing opposition of their voices, the balance of power shifts dramatically away from the people and to the government.
As such, preservation of freedom of speech is imperative, despite the protections afforded to hate groups. Public opinion and derision sufficiently quell the voice of such bodies – the government has no need to do so.

The Expansion of Free Speech

                Historically, free speech referred to media outlets exercising a constitutional right.  Today, I could fill a 250 word blog just by listing various outlets of free speech, thanks to technology and the ease of access it provides to the individual.  Now, one does not only think of a mass publication such as a magazine or a newspaper, or a syndicated television broadcast like a news production or documentary, as the primary utilization of the right to free speech.  Instead, while individuals can read a publication or turn into the television, they tend to also include an extensive list of ways to exercise free speech besides these two—surf the web, send an e-mail, compose a blog, create a website, host a chat session or chat room, write an editorial piece to be published by a third party site, engage in a Facebook conversation, send a text message, talk on the phone, mail a letter, fax a document, etc. 

                All in all, technology has increased the venues and inherently increased the ease with which individuals can exercise this right.  Additionally, this increase in free speech generates a multi-opinioned society.  The days of “one thought” or one organization’s thoughts heavily influencing a vast population are over.  They are replaced with conflicting views, which must each be supported by appropriate verification and validation.

Due to this fact, I believe that today’s society is better off in general.  Thanks to the increase in the exercise of free speech and the breadth of which one’s views can reach the public, we are no longer subjected to the knowledge, views, and information “given” by those who have access to means of delivery.  Instead, if you are willing to put for the effort to search, read, and explore these different venues, it is possible to educate yourself on almost any subject of interest, from multiple viewpoints and varying opinions.

Flaw of Free Speech

Free speech has been stretched too far.  In the times of the founders, free speech was implemented so the individual would be permitted to speak against those in rule.  The freedom to speak brought diversity into the opinions of the people and allowed growth in a developing society.  Latent ambiguity has played a vital role to many of our governing politics but in terms of free speech, our country has regressed.  Because of the largely unregulated spectrum of free speech, tabloids are now the poster-child for American culture and burning the country’s flag is legal. 

Free speech gives media the power to say almost anything they want.  We are showered daily with the opinions of writers on the “War in Iraq” or “the latest movie release” or “how parents should treat their children.”  Although “confronting the problems of unfiltered content” creates better citizens, this showering of opinions creates a bias in the content provided to the reader because the content released by media is controlled.  The large media businesses like New York Times or CNN all release or discuss content that favors their points of view.  Because of competition rooted in capitalism, the media is now controlled and express no diversity in opinion.  Therefore, free speech is flawed.

On the internet, we can view blogs, forums, and chats.  These online resources are the essentials of free speech.  They provide a common place for people to banter, support, and refute opinions.  This open source, “forum” style of free speech should be the model of free speech.  

A Bridge Between Two Worlds

Think about where you grew up, who your friends were, and what kind of school you went to. All of these are things that have shaped you in to the person that you are today. These items and situations that you have encountered with these items have also shaped your values, opinions, and ideas. We all grow up differently, with different parents, different friends, and in different environments. All of this combined means that we are all different when it comes to our values, opinions, and ideas. This shaping is not necessarily a bad thing, but it limits the diversity in which we are exposed to in our lifetime. Someone who grew up in California will have a completely different outlook on life than say someone who grew up in Alabama. Although there is nothing wrong with either of these lifestyles, these gaps in exposure can be closed with a little something called the internet.

Although some people may disagree, I believe that the internet has opened doors to free speech in a way that was unpredictable to the framers of our Constitution. Lessig makes the claim that there is “a value in confronting the unfiltered,” and the internet does just that. Although the internet can be filtered, so can aspects of real space. Just like the internet can keep you from certain web pages, your parents can keep you from being exposed to certain opinions or certain situations. I believe that this “unfiltered” world in which Lessig speaks of is most apparent on the internet, compared to anywhere else in society. The web creates an array of opportunities to search for information, gain knowledge, and teach one about diversity in other parts of the country, or even other parts of the world. With just the click of a few buttons, one can be exposed to the thoughts and opinions of millions. People often show this freedom by posting things on websites such as YouTube, Facebook, and community chat sites. The media is also able to express this freedom by having their own news sites, such as CNN, Fox News, and NBC. Most everyone has this opportunity to be involved, it all comes down to whether they take advantage of it or not.

So, although you may come from here, and I may come from there, we as people can become more connected with one another’s ideas because of the internet and the freedom that it gives us to speak our mind. Although some may argue that the internet is a filter, it is only what you make of it. If you choose to only enter web pages that are suitable to your opinions, then you are choosing to miss out on the wide variety of new and exciting opinions that are sitting there, waiting for you to read. The internet has done wondrous things for free speech. It has also helped us to create a more diverse society, which in turn will lead us to becoming a better nation.

FREE SPEECH

Free speech is the diversity of viewpoints. Anyone expose to the wide values ideas and perspectives. First amendment can get in the way of protecting free speech because the first amendment is accountable and thin. The right to freedom of speech is closely related to other rights. The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the holder of the general right to freedom of expression for all. Nowadays, there are many media such as internet offer us on a global scale of free speech. Here, anyone can say anything they wishes, anyone else free to heard and even can responds to the thought or perspective on any topics of discussion, for example, the Wikipedia. The aim is neutral as contributors feel free to edits and reedit to the frames of ideas neutrally. Free speech indirectly develop such a kind of community of people worldwide which collaborate working to converge upon truth across a wide range of topics. If we do believe that the nation depends on public look of new ideas, then the standard of freedom of speech is the most important value that society should support. The more experience someone has with the Internet the more strongly they generally believe in the importance of freedom of speech. This is because this personal experience has convinced them of the benefits of wide view expression. This online media offers the universal access to free speech and promotes the fundamental concept of freedom of speech.

Apple's Contribution to Preserving IP

As a major contributor and provider for technology in the current market, Apple is making great steps in preserving intellectual property through technologies. 

With the creation of iTunes and the corresponding iTunes Store, Apple has provided music listeners with an alternative to illegal fire sharing.  They have combined the ease of their reputable “user friendly” programming with online music downloads that go straight to the user.  The neat thing is that even though Apple provides a safe, easy, and high quality place to download music, they are not detracting from the original artists ability to make profit.  The way Apple has made deals with the publishing companies that represent the artists are in a way that the profit is divided into percentages so the artist, song-writer, publisher, producers, etc. all gain their share.

            Apple has also provided a way where programmers who write applications can host their freeware or shareware programs.  In the downloads section of Apple’s website there is a library of applications that either cost money to download or are free.  Many of these applications enhance the user friendliness of Apple’s software or provide neat additions to them.  This creates a symbiotic relationship with Apple and programmers by basically giving them a place to advertise their programs to make money (while Apple’s reputation and large security measures protect them), while these programmers uphold Apple’s reputation as well.

            Apple has integrated technology that can host programmers as well as musicians to provide greater, more reliable alternatives to illegal file sharing, thus, preserving intellectual property.

Less is More

Copyright is often seen as a good thing, and in most cases it is. It protects the individualistic ideas of citizens within our country. If someone comes up with an original idea, they should have the rights to that idea without anyone else being able to profit off it. I have no qualms with the idea of copyright itself, but rather the idea of how long that author is able to hold on to those rights.

As it is in effect right now, Spinello states that, copyright laws give authors “exclusive rights in their works, especially the right to make copies” for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years. No, I did not make a typo. Even 70 years after departing from this earth, an author is still able to hold on to the rights of their works without anyone easily making copies or using them. To me this seems a little absurd. It seems unnecessary that the author should hold the rights even after they have passed away. I think that it would be more logical to cut down those rights. The author did put a lot of long hours and hard work into their specific works and therefore should be rewarded for it, but only for a reasonable amount of time. I present that the author have copyright on their works for the period of their lifetime. This way, the author will have control and profits from their efforts all the days of their life and do not have to worry about anyone taking that from them. It makes no sense for them to still be profiting off of a work when they are not even alive anymore.

I will reiterate that I am in no way saying that copyright is a bad thing, but rather that it just needs some small revisions. By protecting these works for such a long period of time, I believe that we are only hindering our country, instead of providing it with incentive to be more creative. This would be a small effort that would reap an even greater change.

Patents

I love patents.  Well, in actuality, it’s not the actual patents.  It is the function they serve that I love.  My ultimate career goal is to be a fashion designer. (I know, I know, what am I doing in Engineering?)  But upon the creation of an article of clothing, it is my design.  And as the creator, I get to physically claim it with a tag or label sewn into the back collar.  But what if my ultimate career goal were to create an article of technology? How would I claim this work, unable to sew in a tag or label, and realize the financial benefits from said invention?

Patents enable inventors to officially claim these works of technology and the royalties that ensue.  They create ownership over shared items, which in turn, allow all of society to benefit.  In exchange, members of society usually pay the holder of the patent for the use of these shared items.  In the end, a remarkable circle of benefits is created—inventors get the needed incentive to invent and society is bettered by the product of their work.  

However, intellectual property is getting more difficult to define.  In order to lay claim, one must first be able to explicitly define the idea or invention at hand, which is one area where patents can be difficult.  Furthermore, a patent database, so to speak, has failed to keep speed with the technology the patents are protecting.  It is often difficult to figure out if an idea is patented, and if so, what are the exact boundaries?  Commonly, inventions could be altered in order to sidestep the jurisdictions of a patent.  But this is a difficult task if those jurisdictions are difficult, or even impossible, to find. 

Computer Monitoring in Business

My brother works for as a financial advisor for the company “Edward Jones.”  As tools for the job position, because he is currently working out of our home, the company sent him a LaserJet printer and a tablet PC.  He asked if he could use my computer to look up something on the Internet and I told him to use his own.  He said that “he couldn’t use the Internet to go on ESPN, they monitor that kind of stuff.”  This is an example of how technology has enabled monitoring of work.  It is a somewhat legitimate use of monitoring, but I believe this is a harm to our privacy. 

Even though my brother is not on his time card to work, which should allow him the freedom to surf the Internet as he pleases, he is still unable to do things like check his email or look up the scores of football games in fear that he will be caught and suffer the unknown consequences.  The computer is property of Edward Jones therefore they have the right to enforce the way in which the computer is used.  However, the harm is embedded in the fact that he is forced to work under this condition because the company has threatened his job with the idea of invading his privacy.

Computer monitoring like this case is used by companies everywhere.  It is a rule that is difficult to challenge because doing so brings the possibility of jeopardizing the individual’s career.  Although it is fact that computer monitoring is invasion of privacy, when is it justified?  I believe it is justified only in cases that show evidence of harming our security.  But privacy is a complicated issue that has many stances

Let's Follow the EU!

Being a college student can be hard. It seems like at times that it is almost impossible to find time to do things such as shopping. Due to my lack of time, and busy schedule, I often make my purchases online. It is easy, not very time consuming, and convenient. What online sites lack to tell you is that your every move, and every purchase are often being monitored by companies so that they can collect data about things that you like. This data is often used to better market ads at you as an individual. I don’t think that it is very fair that this type of information is so easily accessed without my consent. Shouldn’t I have a say in who receives my personal information? Apparently that right is not guaranteed here in the good old U.S.A.

In one of his articles, Hull describes privacy as not just an issue within the United States, but also amongst other international entities such as the European Union. When I had finished reading the article, I must say that I think that it would be very beneficial for us to adopt the ways of the European Union when it comes to the issue of privacy. I believe that adopting stricter rules about keeping citizens information private would help our country as a whole. Many citizens often become frustrated when they have their data processed for no reason, or have their personal information passed along to another marketing company without their consent. In the EU, when collecting information from an individual, the people collecting other’s information must state their identities, why they are processing that specific person, and some additional information. Unlike the U.S., the EU can only use the processed information for specific purposes that have been agreed upon in advance. The United States allows a company to use someone’s personal information for unlimited purposes that need not be specified. I believe that this is an invasion of our citizen’s privacy since they cannot even choose as to what their information is being used for. One point about the European Union’s privacy policy that really sold me was that of how their data is provided to third parties. In order for personal information about a citizen to be released to third parties for direct marketing, “the individual must be informed and have the right to opt out free of charge.” How is it that we do not have such an implementation on privacy in what is supposed to be one of the most free and fair governments in the world?

By instating at least some of the policies that are present in the European Union, I believe that we can better secure the identities of our citizens, as well as fulfill our duty of keeping things private if that is the wish of the citizen or consumer.

PRIVACY

Based on Brandeis's slogan, "the right to be left alone", mean that we have the right to our own private life. What right does anyone interrupt into our personal life? What right does anyone can easily gather our personal information? How can our privacy being protected? I really agree with the European Privacy Directive which implements comprehensive legislation to protect their citizen's privacy. This protection required a very superior protection for the citizens. When managing individual information, the data must reveal their identities, the purpose of the processing, and the data can only be processed for the known purpose by the individual. The individual also have the right to edit or correct the information before it being published to the public or provided to the third parties for direct marketing. In contrary to US, there are no such permit to used others personal data for unlimited purpose. Once the information is published, it will become universal to public use. Do you feel safe with this situation? What should we do to protect our privacy? As we see, our privacy has been interrupted indirectly by the government in a certain situation. For example, at the airport during the examination process, our laptop is being intruded by the examiner and simply copies all the data in the laptop without any permission. What if there are any private and secret data about business or some kind of that which obviously cannot be share to the public? Yes! This action is to protect the country from any of violence actions. But is it fair to us, as the communities being treated like this?

CONSUMER PANOPTICON

Consumer Panopticon is a system of data collection that results in better-targeted advertising. With consumer panopticon the gathering of data is more efficient. The companies may know and target the consumer on what they are interested in, based on the information of the consumer. In conjunction, the consumer can easily get and find what they want as they are being promoted by the companies through mail or email. In directly, consumer will not receive any junk mail and email which is not related with their interest. In other word, consumer and companies get their own benefit on this consumer panopticon. I do not see this consumer panopticon has interept into our privacy as long as it does not harm and give bad effects to us. Consumer panopticon collect our data and information about the items we bought, the date, price and so forth. All of this information is stored through the discount card at local grocery. With all of the information about the consumer, the companies can cut the cost and times of promoting the junk mail or email to those who are not interested in certain products or goods. However, consumer panopticon seems like to manipulate us. Companies use the power of television advertising to control our desire. Television motive is as obvious as it attracts and grabs our attention on their products and goods based on our information. All of this happens on a cycle; from the observer, fits into a system, then pattern-option and reinforce and the cycle begins again.

A Merry-Go-Round of Problems

People my age and younger are, for the most part, in tune with the copyright wars of the entertainment industry.  As music lovers are “forced” to move from one method of music acquisition to another as illegal website after illegal website are shut down, how could one remain oblivious? 

From the introduction of Kazaa during my middle school days, it’s been an uphill battle for all parties involved.  The music labels want to make sure they get money in exchange for their products, rightfully so.  But customers want quick and easy methods of acquiring music and videos (so much so that they’re willing to engage in these aforementioned illegal trades).  Satellite radio did not provide much relief—it is expensive, primarily stationary, and still has annoying disk jockey’s consuming too much air time.  “Regular” radio is as terrible as ever, with enough contests, commercials, and repetitive music to drive listeners away in a day.  Compact discs are expensive, hard to find, and with the exception of the “NOW” collection (i.e. “Now That’s What I Call Music 13”), they are tracks by a single artist.  I don’t know about you, but rarely do I like all 13 songs by a single artist featured on a CD.  Hence, why would I be willing to pay for it?

I am by no means endorsing the illegal acquisition of music.  In fact, I lament the poor quality and static-filled songs that these sites provide.  Furthermore, the songs rarely translate well to mp3 players or homemade compact discs to play in the car.  But what I do endorse is the instant gratification and minimal investment provided.

My computer crashes more often than I’d like to admit.  So investing thousands of dollars into a music collection that needs to be backed up on a daily basis to ensure the safety of this investment is illogical…it is just not going to happen.  I barely have time to download the song initially, yet alone essentially download it twice—once to my hard drive and then a second time to my back-up hard drive. 

Until the entertainment industry can find a way to provide music, movies, and television shows in a high-quality format that is not deemed as an “investment” by the purchaser, the illegal trade of these commodities will continue to surface.  And the sooner the participants in the supply side of this industry stop pursuing the “criminals” and start pursuing the “answer”, the sooner all parties involved will benefit.  The record labels and production companies will get their royalties, while the customer will get a higher-quality product in an easy-to-use format. 

I'll Forfeit My Privacy.

I am sitting at Starbucks and lovingly sipping my hot coffee on a freezing Nashville afternoon.  With music playing in the background, what a perfect place to blog about intellectual property and copyright laws, right?  Wrong.  When I attempt to access the Black Team’s Google “BlogSpot”, the website is blocked by my Starbuck’s T-Mobile connection; “This frame was blocked because it contains some insecure content”.  Okay, so let me get this straight—I paid $10 for a public connection and now I cannot visit the websites of my choice such as Facebook, BlogSpot, etc.?  But what if I am okay with this unsecure connection and am willing to take on the lack of privacy at my own risk?  Nope, it’s still not allowed. 

Privacy is important.  From the standpoint of an individual environment, privacy is relatively easy to obtain.  I lock my doors at night, make a private phone call while running errands in my car, close my window blinds when changing, and put a passcode lock on my phone to keep my nosy roommates out of my business.  Microsoft word allows users to password protect individual documents.  And Google now rates their user’s password on a scale from weak to strong at registration, to help deter hacking.  I only lend as much information to others as I deem necessary, most often on a need-to-know basis. 

Things get complicated though, when other “parties” get involved.  Like Starbuck’s or T-Mobile in my case.  T-Mobile is trying to protect me by preventing access to certain websites when in fact, they are only creating inconveniences.  Ironically, I don’t really care who reads my blogs about privacy or intellectual property.  So if I am willing to take on this risk, why am I not allowed to do so?  As technologically becomes further integrated into our everyday lives, companies, individuals, and the government alike are all going to have to find the right balance between privacy and freedom.  In my opinion, one of the only ways to do this is through the use of choice.  Instead of T-Mobile automatically blocking me from certain websites, I could have been provided the choice to “forfeit a secure connection” and continue on with business.  Or, in the case that private matters were involved, I would have appreciated the notification and not continued forward.  

On Film and Privacy

Imagine a world in the not too distant future. Immediately upon birth, a sample of blood is taken from the newborn child. The results return quickly. The mother, holding her infant, begins to sob upon the doctor's evaluation. On a scale of 100, the child is rated to be a 24 – he suffers from myopia and asthma, and has an estimated life expectancy of just 36 years. The inconsolable, distraught mother cannot help but despair upon picturing the grim future of her son. His grading relegates him to the lowest levels of education, as there is little incentive for the government to invest in his betterment given his minimal estimated time for contribution. Before the child speaks his first word or takes his first step, his destiny is known to his family and his government, the latter of whom will ensure that not an iota of extra attention will be misapplied to the boy.

As the mother enters the subway station carrying a bassinet with the sleeping baby, tens of cameras observe her. Some record directly for the federal government, searching for threats to the paramount issue, national security. Others exist in more capitalistic capacities. A camera observes the dark circles under her eyes, a product of many tears and sleepless nights. Another interprets the image of the bassinet to mean that the young female is a new mother. Yet another camera compiles information on the branding and labels of her clothing and accessories, information which will be sold to the highest bidder. As the woman walks through security, the signs on either side light up. One advertises the newest innovation in makeup to hide "those pesky sleep circles," while another expounds upon the merits of the newest diaper technology.

This scenario is little more than a mixing of privacy invading technologies present in two near future movies, Gattaca and Minority Report. In Gattaca, the government segregates via genetic function, and in the latter, identification scans reveal location and interest to concerned parties. Such technologies represent a clear breach of privacy, to the point of arguably violating one of the Fourth Amendment's protected conceptions of privacy. Privacy is thought of by some as being little more than a constraint upon the power of the government to regulate. The genetic testing and ranking represents the furthest departure from such privacy – the government regulates solely on the basis of an incursion on private health records. The targeted advertisement represents the ultimate evolution of the consumer panopticon.

If Gattaca and Minority Report are any indication, the near future is bleak and absent of any inkling of privacy.

On Pirates and Sculptors

In any discussion of intellectual property, the disparate motivations behind creator right violations must be analyzed. There are two archetypal intellectual property right violators – the pirate and the sculptor, and just as their desires vary, so too must their treatment.

*The Pirate*

The room is dim, obscured entirely from view. The lights are out, and the single window allows only for the entrance of the darkest night. All that is visible to the naked eye is my hunched form, illuminated by the glow of my monitor. My mouth is turned upward in a menacing grimace; my fingers race across the keys, shattering any silence that may develop during momentary lulls for contemplation. As I complete my effort, the grimace widens – I have successfully recoded a program for distribution on my own server. For the insignificant sum of $9.95, I purchased amazingly powerful software, solely in pursuit of profit. The simple recoding allows for online distribution – I will charge the princely sum of $99.99 per downloaded copy, making an enormous profit for only a night's work.

*The Sculptor*

The bright, vibrant posters add a great deal of color to the fully illuminated room. My friends and I crowd around the monitor, disappointed to be inside on so beautiful a day, but inspired by the promise of our work. From our earliest memories, we have shared a common passion for all things Disney and for movie songs in particular. We purchased the albums to nearly all of Disney's recent animated movies, converted the files into sound bites, and proceeded to remix them, forming new lyrics and effects. With a raucous cheer and joyful high fives, we press "upload –" our work is now available for the enjoyment of all via YouTube.

The pirate seeks to profit from the work of others; the sculptor seeks to craft a unique medium of entertainment for the consumption of the masses. Though both require the use of protected intellectual properties, it is clear that the deviation in purpose justifies a difference in response. The pirate should be held accountable to the full extent of the law – he has attempted fraudulent behavior. The sculptor, on the other hand, should be permitted to innovate and build upon the work of others, as long as his efforts do not impinge upon the profit making capacity of the creator, do not yield profit, and are intended to produce pleasure.

Download free of charge!!

Endlessly searching for songs and downloading them free of charge is something that we have all heard about and in most cases done ourselves. I personally know many friends who have thousands of songs just sitting in the music library that have been provided to them free of charge. To most people this seems ok, as it did to me before being educated on the issue. You don’t think about the tiresome hours spent writing the lyrics, or the late nights finding the right melody for that one song. All you seem to think about is the resources available to you and their free of charge campaign. I will admit that I was one of those naïve Americans, but I now see how important copyright laws are for intellectual property such as music. The works of musicians, as well as authors, inventors, and others, should not be distributed freely without the consent of the inventor, or at a cost that is agreed upon.

I believe that stronger actions need to be taken to secure the rights of musicians and their intellectual property on the internet. Spinello defines intellectual property as consisting of “intellectual objects,” such as original musical compositions, poems, novels, inventions, product formulas, and so forth. Music seems to be one of the largest objects that fall under this category that is illegally distributed. Servers such as Kazaa, are now being punished for their actions of allowing illegal downloading, but shouldn’t we as a nation be proactive to situations such as these instead of reactive? Although Kazaa has been sued for their wrongs, and paid millions of dollars to artists in return, they can never really repay the artists for all of the illegal music in which they let leak out in to the general public.

One positive feature that is protecting intellectual property such as music is present right on our very own campus. Vanderbilt offers a server called “Ruckus” in which you are able to download music for free, but in a legal and safe way. It is actions such as these that promote good copyright practices amongst Americans in our younger generation. Vanderbilt also does not allow illegal downloading while on campus, and if caught, imposes serious consequences upon the user. Although it would be easy for the student to just download the music somewhere off campus, or at home, at least this is a step in the right direction for copyright laws being implemented on things such as intellectual property. So the next time you go to download that song free of cost, think of the musician, and how you would feel if that were your song and your hard work being stolen.

COPYRIGHT LAWS

Copyright is a legal concept, which is created by government which gives the creator the right towards their creation and work. Here, I would like to talk about copyright. Why it is important? To whom is it important? Basically, copyright is important to protect a fictional, musical, dramatic, artistic, architectural or audio from being duplicated by others without the permission or paying the royalties to the copyright holder. The current intent of the copyright is to endorse the creation of new work by giving authors control, right and profit from them. The authors have their right in their work as long as the work does not enter the public domain, where the work is no long belong to the owner and can be used by others simultaneously. These copyright laws have the limitations regarding to the public interest. One of the limitation is the fair used. Under this fair used limitation, one can quote the works for limited purpose. Fair use also allow teacher to make a copy of several pages from a book to the student, but it is not distribution of the copy for the whole book. Parody is a subset of the fair use that protects the copyright work in conjunction to make fun of it. However, the problem of the copyright is the author and the creator keep extending the copyright protection in order to gain profit. This act indirectly extend the time of the work to enter the public domain. This problem leads to the limiting idea and invention of new generations as the present idea is locked to be developed by other generations.

Remix Copyright

With the rise in technology, younger people have become owners of personal computers making the peer-to-peer file sharing problem more prevalent in the online community.  Although peer-to-peer file sharing is a infringement on copyright laws it is not a significant problem.  In Lessig’s “Remix” article, he says “we are in the middle of something of a war…the copyright wars” and the focus is not on the “creators,” it is on “the pirates.”  I agree with Lessig in that we must end this war because we can’t kill creativity, however, we cannot forget the battle of copyright laws.  It is a battle we cannot win because of the vastness of the internet, but if we do give due to the laws that support artist creativity, then their will be no original productions from these creators to encourage remix’s coming from artists such as Girl Talk.  Without the strict enforcement of copyright laws there is no incentive for artists.  Lessig is correct when he supports “amateur creativity.”  Some copyright laws apply to cases that have no significant harm to the artist such as the example of the YouTube video with Prince playing in the background.  This is why I believe that although copyright laws should be strictly enforces, they should not be handles by the major corporations such as Universal or Virgin that create these copyright laws.  This makes it an unfair advantage to the individual or “amateur” producers.  In addition, peer-to-peer file sharing is illegal but it also helps these “amateur” artists.  It is an easy way to bypass the system.  Also, file sharing is a step towards the recreation of the “commons.”  The only disadvantage of this goes towards the corporations who will profit, holders of copyright laws, from individual property.  

The Fruits of My Labor?

"I toil through the night, working to perfect my brain child. Sweat condenses upon my brow, as my forehead furrows in intense concentration. My cherry red, straining eyes begin to tear as they reach their limit of exertion. My fingers, working furiously for hours now, begin to spasm and rebel. My back aches, crying out against the contorted position which I have assumed. Ignoring all of this, I persist, desperate to conclude the work that has consumed my life for the past four years. As dawn breaks, and the first rays of morning sunshine crest the hill beyond my tiny window, I press submit, slump against the back of my chair, and close my eyes – basking in the serenity of completion. My stomach clenches – I realize that I have not eaten in over a day. I scrounge for food in the empty cupboards and refrigerator, looking for some small morsel of sustenance. The writing process has exhausted my finances, but I know the months and years of hunger will come to an end as soon as my book begins to yield royalty.
*2 Months Later*
I stare dejectedly into the blackness of the night, at a loss for what to do. The book, which held so much promise, was immediately approved by my editor. An angry staffer decided to leak my words and effort to the internet, where it has become a mammoth success. The file has been downloaded millions of times, representing enormous losses in book sales. The publishing house no longer wishes to print the book, fearing that the market has already consumed the product."
The above scenario demonstrates both the power and folly of today's internet driven world. My words reached millions, and the circulation was costless – no printing, binding, or distribution fees. This is the strength of a connected globe – we are able to interact and converse with great ease. However, the lack of obstacles to this communication represents a potential threat to the innovators and creators who are responsible for the production of intellectual property. Locke contends that property is a product of the right of the people to their work – in the above situation, I certainly have a right to my work. The loss of royalty is a result of piracy, and protection against piracy is imperative if we hope to maintain incentive for creativity. These protections should be defensive, not offensive – the emphasis should be placed in defending the right of the creator rather than infringing upon the rights of the consumer. As such, I support strict copyright and patent laws that terminate upon the death of the creator (as opposed to the current system extending beyond the lifetime).
An example of this arose recently with J.K Rowling's Harry Potter series. A community website had established an encyclopedic index of characters, and the creator of the website sought to publish the material. Rowling protested, arguing that such a publication would infringe upon her copyright. I support Rowling in this instance, especially when consideration is given to the fact that she had plans for such a work herself. Rowling supported the community when it was restricted to the online space – she recognized the power of the forum in building passion for reading. She drew the line at profit making – no one else should be able to gain from her creativity or prevent her from benefiting from it. Such a stance defends the author's right while not preventing others from enjoying the work to its fullest.

Pompeii and Arcadia

My mental picture of Arcadia depicts what the ruins of Pompeii must have looked like when it was a thriving society millions of years ago. I picture the hustle and bustle of everyday life: people walking the streets gathering supplies for dinner, “Mom and Pop” shops running their small stores, and all people working in harmony towards the betterment of their town. But today, Pompeii no longer exists as anything more than skeletal remains. Because like Arcadian societies, Pompeii was “hopelessly Utopian”.

The backbone of Arcadia is decentralized nationalization, which is the dispersion of decision making governance closer to the people or governed body. It is a society biased towards “locally, self-reliant economics” and small, single proprietorships like those found in Pompeii. There is a constant goal of social and environmental justice, believed to be achieved through local and democratic control of the economy. But this completely unrealistic—the people of Arcadian societies are trying to live in dual worlds: one grounded in the belief of a non-GDP based economy, modest good consumption, and reverence for tradition, and the other nested in modern methods of communication, travel, and energy services.

As a society, they have imposed high taxes on what they deem to be “excessive wealth”, in order to keep all members of the society within economic equality. But this only leads to stifled economic growth caused by a reduction in skilled labor, specialty professions, and a decrease in imports. The actions that seem to establish a “fair” society will only cause the Arcadian town to slip behind modern advancements that better the human race, eventually leading to the same fate as Pompeii.

Capitalism and the Hyper-Mobility of Capital

Although Capitalism is widely accepted throughout our society, many people seem to believe that we can do better. The only problem is that no one has any alternative solutions in which we would be able to progress further under that is better than Capitalism. I believe that any system under which our economy is run is going to have problems, but one problem that is drastically out of control is that of the hyper-mobility of capital. I also believe that under Schweickart’s model of Economic Democracy, this can be slowed down if not completely eliminated. He proposes that with this system there would be hardly any capita flow across the border. Since his model proposes worker self-management, or an enterprise that is controlled by its workers, this would keep jobs in the United States, instead of sending them abroad where they can be done with cheaper labor. Sending these jobs abroad is one the main problems that exists in our economy today. Our economy is hurting for jobs. Factories and companies are being shut down all over the United States, only to be shipped to another country to be done for a lesser cost. If Capitalism continues at this rate, there will be no more jobs in the U.S., everything will be divided up by the division of labor, and sent overseas. With Economic Democracy much of this can be changed. There has to come a point in our current economy that we say enough is enough and propose a change. Although I understand that this change is not going to be easy, I think that it will be well worth it in the long run. Prices may increase at first, which may anger many Americans, but in the years to come, more jobs will stay on American soil.

Where Will It End?

I recently had an internship this summer in which I was a Mechanical Engineering intern, and therefore was constantly surrounded by technology. It was during this time in which I experienced some of what is discussed in the Baase reading. It is true that computers have made it more probable for a new type of monitoring in the workplace, but this monitoring is not always good. The first day at my new job, I had a meeting with another employee where company policies and rules were explained. It was here in which I was told that any e-mail that was sent, received, or even opened on a work computer was property of the company. They therefore had the right to view the e-mail, and do what they pleased with it. I was also informed that any web sites or anything done on the internet, could be monitored by them as well. Being new to the working world, this shocked me that they were able to legally do this.

I know that the argument can be made that it shouldn’t be a problem because you shouldn’t be doing anything but work related stuff on your computer anyway. Although this is an ideal argument, I do not think that it is true amongst common people in their everyday place of work. There are plenty of people that during work check their e-mail account that is not directly distributed by the company, visit non work related web sites, and even send non work related e-mails. If you want to browse the internet or send an e-mail during your lunch break, what gives your company the right to read that e-mail when it has nothing to do with them? Over the course of the summer, I worked hard, and finished all of my projects in a timely manner. If this is the case for a majority of employees, than why is monitoring to this extent necessary? I feel that the implementation of a more strict monitoring system need only be instated if there are problems amongst specific employees. Why should the hard workers be punished for the laziness of others? Although I had no problems that came from this strict policy, it is just the idea of being monitored that seemed to bother me. It seems as though with the advancement of technology, our money hungry capitalist economy has taken it too far. Before we know it, we won't be able to go to the bathroom without someone monitoring our every move.

Management Objectives Remain Static

Greenbaum and associated thinkers consistently make the outrageous claim that the shift in workplace dynamic is a product of not only a change in technology, but also a radical modification in management objectives. This could not be further from the truth. Capitalism has claimed a defining role in American society from the pre-colonial tobacco days, through the industrial age, and into the digital era. Management objectives are contingent upon the guiding economic system – managers in a capitalist setting will execute their tasks in a given manner, which observably differs from the methodology employed by managers in a socialist setting. Nevertheless, the consistent presence of capitalism has allowed management objectives to remain static – the pursuit of profit is the sole quest of any capitalist manager. In order to maximize profit, costs must be minimized and profits maximized. The ruthless chase of these twin ambitions defines modern capitalist management objectives, just as it has in the past. The tobacco magnets of the Jamestown era did not hesitate in assuming possession of the vast quantities of Native American land needed to grow their crop, often utilizing force to achieve their ends. This lack of concern for native populations continued through America's industrially powered push into the western wilderness – hunting and tribal grounds were seized with nigh impunity in order to facilitate the expansion of railroad lines. Today, capitalist managers continue to exploit underdeveloped populations. Actions are dependent upon objective; the clear consistency in action readily attests to a consistency in objective. The differences that do arise are a product of technology – advances in communication and transportation allow the capitalist manager access to a global reserve army of labor that was previously unusable. In conclusion, management objectives have not changed – profit has been and will continue to be the most prominent operative benchmark in a capitalist society.

Economic Democracy Hurts Quality of Life

Economic Democracy's system of fair, rather than free, trade initially appears praiseworthy. By ensuring that trading may only occur between nations of roughly equivalent socioeconomic conditions and environmental standards, the production and consumption costs in both economies will be similar. If these two criteria are not met, the imports will be subjected to protectionism in the form of tariffs designed to increase prices to the point where domestic alternatives become competitive. This implementation of fair trade seems logical – because there is little cost incentive to import goods, the vast majority of domestic consumption will be satisfied by domestic production, which severely curtails the hyper mobility of capital. By consequence, domestic employment is safer – fewer jobs will relocate overseas as the associated costs will exceed the benefits (not to mention the fact that the workers dominate the system through self management). Despite these purported benefits, fair trade is seriously flawed. Preventing cheaper goods and services from entering the market serves only to reduce the consumption levels of the importing populace – universally higher prices mean that all must make do with less, given steady income levels. As such, workers are hurt – free trade allows for greater consumption, which indicates a higher quality of life. Economies operating under Economic Democracy will continue to exist in a smaller state. In order for the production possibilities frontier (and thus the economy) to expand, high levels of imports are necessary. For much of the 19^th century, the United States engaged in such importation habits*. European governments, determining that large profits would result, readily loaned America funds to purchase imports. These purchases were undertaken in order to force our economy to grow into a dynamic entity. A larger economy means greater output, which results in greater income and consumption spending, which means that the quality of life for workers improves. Fair trade prevents such importation and therefore inhibits worker and economic progress. While it is true that more workers will be employed under Economic Democracy due to less competition, it is also true that every worker will be less well off. This is not a viable alternative.

Source (*) : "Principles of Macroeconomics, Buckles"

Division of Labor

Division of labor can be classified into social division of labor and division of labor in detail. Division of labor is so-called the derivative of the specific character of work. Division of labor practiced by capitalist destroys occupations as the workers insufficient to carry through any complete production process. Under capitalism, work is divided along the sex lines, every man or woman must do their jobs efficiently. Each man and woman has their responsible on a certain part of the processes. Division of labor provides the workers to become expert only in a certain part of job. They only do a part of the whole the processes, even though they have skills to do more than that. So with this principle, capitalist have their reason to pay the workers at a lower wages as they only do a part of the jobs. The workers have no choice and have to follow the routine and are forced to work overtime without any extra wages. This principle become more worst as the workers spend a bunch of hours only on doing the same things, the same part of the processes , which not be worth as making for a single product. We can see that, the quality of the products might be low as there is no skilled workers work in the specific portion to produce the products. However, division of labor sometimes seems like having advantages. Division of labor increases the quantity of work, where the same number of workers in the difference portion of work performing the same work.

COMPUTER and WORK

Technology allows employers to cross the line from monitoring the work to monitoring the worker –Cindia Cameron, National Association of Working Women. Here I would like to discuss about how technologies control us. Nowadays, technology has controlled our daily life. We indirectly become the 'victim' of the human creation. It is true that computer is one of a basic need today, but computers seems to be a nightmare to the workers as computers are commonly used in monitoring workers at factories and clerical offices. Bosses monitoring the worker, prodding them to work faster and discouraging conversation and breaks. All of the workers actions has been monitored, like reduce the amount of time spend on each calls, record the phone conversation. This is too ridiculous to treat the workers who work for their profit to the company like that. The employer treats the workers like robots machines not people- expected them to work more than they can do as a human being.

Work monitoring using the technology becomes more ridiculous as the employer interrupts the workers personal lives. The employer easily can read an employer's e-mail and can see where each of the workers is, even when they go to the bathroom. This has diminishes the worker's dignity and liberty and destroys confidence. Is this the real function of why the technology is invented? In some points, employer seems to misuses the function of technology. Here we can see that, technology acts beyond what they suppose to do- help human in doing work. This happened because of a small groups of people who really want to gain profit without thinking about the welfare of the workers.

Irony of Division of Labor

In the Braverman article, he never clearly states which side of the argument he favors.  He merely explains the historical concepts of the division of labor and science and how these ideas developed into a form of control over the worker.  Although Braverman provides an answer of where division of labor stems from, “apparently inherent in the species character of human labor as soon as it becomes social labor,” this does not reflect the causality of the division of labor in complete detail.  This inherent characteristic is created by the social labor norm that, if a worker provides a service (labor) he expects a return.  Thus, the force behind the division of labor is profit making/capital.

Upon creating a division of labor, the division of labor in detail breaks down the division further.  Now the worker is forced to perform a single or specific task.  Although division of labor is apparent in society, division of labor in the workplace is a way of producing efficiently.  Because the worker only does one task, he is not encouraged to know the skill necessary to create a product.  In this, the sub division of labor in detail is a detrimental harm to education.  It encourages labor standards and creates a glass ceiling for those forced into the workplace.  In order for the division of labor to succeed, there must be a form of control.  To control the labor and enforce standards there is management that oversees the entire process.  The mastermind behind the buying of commodities, dividing-up labor, etc. to create a product efficiently and at the lowest cost possible to gain more capital.  Therefore, the force behind the creation of division of labor is what makes the unskilled workers give up their freedom and become managed or governed within the workplace.  It’s a bit ironic that instead of capitalism serving the people, people become slaves to capitalism.