The material on this web site is
here for education and research purposes under the "Fair Use" Copyright Laws
(Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107). Wherever possible we have acknowledged
the copyright holder and/or linked back to the original website.
Planetary Trend for the Twenty-First Century
Kincheloe advocates open source in his work. From a pflanetary perspective, in thfe future we
will be moving away from the idea that the United States should dictate knowledge and copyright legislation to the world.
The whole purpose of Kincheloe's work was to increase our awareness of the constraints to knowledge production and to open
up the "knowledge spigot." As it stands, U.S. policy is grotesquely hampering flow of knowledge and forcing Western
views on the entire world as well as forcing constraining, disempowering legislation on its own citizensf, even when it comes
to interpreting fair use copyright legislation for educational purposes.
Open source provides great flexibility and this idea should
continue to evolve so that all societies and their values and perspectives concerning the idea of "owning" digital
numbers in hyperspace are considered and also that we consider greater, more altruistic purposes than "free market economics"
which serve the few. Many cultures do not entertain property ownership the way the Western cabal legislates and have had Western
values forced upon them through violence and political manipulation.
Ultimately, planetary copyright considerations need to be further researched
using Kincheloe's critical complex epistemology and critical bricolage in an effort to better understand the complexities
and interrelationships for the purpose of maintaining rights and contributions of alternative worldviews and for the purpose
of limiting and rolling back dominant power constraints in place now. It would be great if someone took up that topic in Kincheloe's
format of research. I may do so later, if I find the time.
That
is my brief critical complex take on copyrights before doing extensive research on the topic. Once one delves into the topic,
it is quickly found that there are U.S. corporations that operate by a double standard.
For anyone truly concerned strict copyright
enforcement, even for educational and altruistic uses, a good exercise is to become intimately familiar with knowledge
production as Kincheloe conceptualized it in its most multidimensional form. Then the folly of such concerns becomes apparent.
That is not to say he was against copyrights; of course he wasn’t. But do we really need them for the world of the future?
That is the true question about this issue that humanity should wrestle with. Why do people ascribe to a “scarcity”
model of living that requires a bizarre notion of ownership? That’s just one question we need to answer and I can think
of dozens more. It’s a topic for another day. Perhaps the Story of Eros and Psyche and the Philosopher's Stone will
provide better answers than have been developed yet today.
17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered
shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the
nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market
for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors. [Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107]
Gates’ rise to success has not been without its hurdles. Microsoft has become a regular participant
in court cases, having been sued both by Apple for copyright infringement and by the US
government for sustaining a monopoly and hindering the development of new technology. Despite having to make some concessions,
the company continues to expand and retains its leading presence in the industry. Microsoft currently has over 61,000 employees
and earns revenues of over $40 billion and in 2004, Gates topped the Forbes List of Richest Americans, with a net worth of
$48 billion.
As internet
video matures, we face a crossroads: will technology and public policy support a more participatory culture—one that
encourages and enables free expression and broader cultural engagement? Will video be woven into the fabric of the open web?
Or will online video become a glorified TV-on-demand service?Open
Video is a movement to promote free expression and innovation in online video through open standards, open source, and sharing.
Reference: THE OPEN VIDEO ALLIANCE
Some Principles for
Open Video
The Principles
for an Open Video Ecosystem are a technical road map for a more decentralized, diverse, competitive, accessible, interoperable,
and innovative future of video. We foresee more democratic, ubiquitous use of video—making it comparable to text and
images today. The Principles cover the following topics:
Authorship and Viewing
— Video creation, editing, and playback tools should be ubiquitous, easy to use, accessible, and available in free and
open source implementations
Open Standards for Video — Video standards
(formats, codecs, metadata, etc.) should be open, interoperable, and royalty free
Open Distribution — Software platforms should support open standards and open licenses. Networks must remain
neutral.
A Rich, Participatory Culture — Laws governing intellectual
property must not discourage participatory culture. By default, video content must be available without technological barriers
or access constraints.
Civil Liberties and Basic Rights — People
should have the right to participate in a democratic culture, the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom from censorship,
non-limiting terms of service, and the right to self-distribution.
Help us refine these principles and translate them into many languages! Open Video Alliance
What is Net Neutrality? What Are We Doing About It?
Reply from Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio
Dear Ms. Paradis:
Thanks for your recent message concerning net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know the concept of "net neutrality" simply defined is keeping Internet Service Providers from being able to arbitrarily stop, speed up or slow down internet
traffic. What Internet Service Providers want
to do is charge website owners differing fees and those who could pay the most would see their web pages load faster when
viewed by someone online. Such interference would stifle innovation and would lead to a multi-tiered Internet where large
companies willing to fork over cash would have an advantage over everyone else. We must ensure that the Internet remains a
level playing field with equal access and no preferential treatment.
Four
years ago the Bush Administrations FCC led by then Republican FCC chairman Kevin Martin announced four net neutrality principles that the FCC would apply, on a case by case basis, to communications
law. These four principles are as follows;
1. consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
3. Consumers are entitled to connect any legal device to the internet of their choosing as long as that device does not harm the network.
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers.
These four principles have been enforced over the last four years. In 2008, Comcast was caught blocking users who were using a legal file sharing program. The FCC forced them to stop, however they have since filed
a lawsuit claiming that the FCC doesn't have the authority
to enforce the so called "four principles" of
net neutrality.
As a response, the Obama FCC announced that it was moving forward on a rulemaking that would simply codify
these existing 4 principles that now guide the FCC's oversight and enforcement of communications law. This is a proposed rule change and because of that is open to public comment.
I urge you to go tohttp://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/display?z=gybhaor call them at 1-888-CALL-FCC to leave a comment to have your
voice heard.
You can be sure that I will continue to fight
for an Internet free of impediments. Thanks again for contacting me.
The best way to show that the United
States is better than repressive regimes is to be sure we don't act like them. Americans must know that no company can spy
on customers, block Internet traffic, deploy invasive technologies, or censor speech. Companies shouldn't be able to use technology
to control Internet content for commercial ends in ways that don't benefit Internet users. -- Josh Silver and Craig Aaron,
SavetheInternet.com
Click on image and join the fight to
save the Internet.
ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU ARE
PAYING FOR?
I
have COMCAST and I get 10% of the mbps I pay for.
It
is essential that we all get involved to ensure a free and open Internet. If big business
is allowed to take over the Internet, we have lost our window of opportunity to utilize a free and democratic system in at
least one dimension of our lives -- as well as the golden opportunity to work toward building a vibrant, democratic world.
You can support freedom of speech, creativity,
and knowledge dissemination -- which is beneficial to us all -- by providing free, open source publications, images, multimedia,
music, etc.
It truly is time to rise up and take a stand for open source and greater creative freedom in education.
Please watch the following very informative video for a quick overview on the importance of an open source mindset for education.
If education does not change, it is doomed. Check back again for more discussion and recommended venues in which it is worthy
of our time and effort to take action.
“As a child I wanted so
desperately for magic to be real. I would work for hours collecting what I hoped were just the right combination of ingredients
to make some type of magic potion that would provide me with special powers….I found such magic in words viewed in
a postformal matrix and I observe and practice that magic everyday.” (Kincheloe, 2006, Reading, Writing, Thinking,
p. 13)
This website is protected by
Article I of the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America: “ARTICLE[I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
