Despite the rising influence of intellectual property and other technology policies on students’ lives, the majority of students at Yale remain unaware of many of these important issues. To help solve this problem, our group has created a set of educational resources that would help Yale students better understand how complex university policies surrounding copyright, fair use, torrents, and other issues affect their lives.
Below are short summaries of some of our findings, organized by topic:
————————————
Bittorrent at Yale
What happens if I’m caught torrenting copyrighted material @ Yale?
Under the 1998 DIgital Millennium Copyright Act, Yale is designated as an Internet Service Provider (ISP), thus is obligated to takedown or disable the infringing content on its network. Yale has a 3 strikes policy based on how many notices you’ve received …. (read more on bittorrent).
——————————————-
Example: A Yale DMCA Takedown Notice
The following is a sample DMCA takedown notification sent to Yale University and subsequently forwarded to the student and his/her respective dean and master.
DMCA Copyright Agent
Information Security Office
25 Science Park
Fax: 203.436.5342
April 19, 2010
Dear XXXXXX (NetID XXXXX, EHA XXXXXXXXXXXX):
Yale University has received a complaint from Warner Bros. regarding the distribution and/or availability of a title they believe to be their intellectual property being distributed on the Yale network (and the Internet). The complaint reports that the computer with IP address XXX.XX.XXX.XXXX (Internet Protocol network address) was and/or is unlawfully making available digitized copies of copyrighted materials. Our records show that this roaming IP address is presently registered to your NetID, or was used by your NetID at the time noted in the complaint. You therefore may be in violation of both Federal copyright law and the University’s Information Technology Appropriate Use Policy (ITAUP), section 1607.1.C.6, “Use in violation of law”” (read more on takedowns).
The Internet is so useful at disseminating art, it is sometimes overlooked as a medium in and of itself. There are artists that work exclusively online, but there are many more artists that use websites simply to display their projects. This is an issue that presents itself whenever a medium originates as a technology for mass communication.
Long before printmaking was embraced as an artistic medium it was used to reproduce paintings, images of architecture, and distribute text-based information. Printmaking was developed as a method of cheaply mass producing and distributing information. Only when it became technologically obsolete was it fully embraced by fine art, but it has since thrived in that context.
It’s hard to imagine a point in time when the Internet will be obsolete, but it may come someday. If the Internet ceased to be the most efficient way to transfer information, it might evolve to serve other less utilitarian purposes.
For my project I created a website that functions like a print. Just as nobody needs the plate used to create a print, nobody needs the actual image file. They just need a link to it. The Internet is obviously superior technology because it can create infinite copies, but it’s roughly analogous.
The print on my website is about net neutrality, which came to mind when I was thinking about how and when the Internet could ever become obsolete. A loss of net neutrality might not make the Internet obsolete, but it would certain reduce its utility. Maybe if the damage was great enough the Internet would join printmaking as a novel but irrelevant technology.
n order to most effectively direct instructional information towards the student body, I surveyed and interviewed a variety of students on their attitudes about copyright and the ethics of illegally copying copyrighted materials.
The effort was a two-part one.
First, I sent a survey to a diverse selection of the student body. I aimed to reach both genders, people of each grade level, and students with a range of knowledge about technology and intellectual property issues. I received 69 responses. Below is a summary of the more interesting results.
Survey Results
Plagiarism vs. Illegal Downloading
Whereas 88 percent of the students that responded claimed to very familiar or moderately familiar with Yale’s policies on plagiarism, only 19 percent reported that they were very familiar with Yale’s policies on downloading copyrighted content without permission, and 42 percent responded that they were not at all familiar with the policies. These results indicate that Yale should provide incoming freshmen with training on these issues during freshman orientation, and needs to make resources available to all grades.
Switch to Google
I asked questions about Yale’s switch to use Google for email services. 90 percent of responders had heard about the plan, and only 3% of responders were against it.
Behavior On Campus vs. Off of Campus Networks
Of the responders, 48 percent said they felt safer downloading copyrighted content without permission off of Yale’s networks. The reasons given for and against downloading at Yale were varied.
Students who felt more comfortable at Yale gave responses like,
-“Yale at the very least can filter the RIAA’s cease and desist demands should they arise, instead of them coming directly for you as they would if you were on your own home network.”
-“Because I know my activity is not being monitored.”
-“Because I have never heard of Yale enforcing illegal downloading policies.”
Students who were more wary on campus networks responded,
-“Because I got reprimanded by Yale for using Limewire, and don’t imagine this would happen elsewhere.”
-“I know for a fact that RIAA and MPAA monitors watch Yale’s network VERY closely. If the file in question is for content they are paying attention to, then five minutes of seeding is enough to attract the **AA’s attention.”
Variety of Copyrighted Material
I was interested in exploring whether student opinions were dependent on the type of content being downloaded without permission.
35 percent of students surveyed thought it was more unethical to download music from an indie band without permission. Their reasons were as follows…
-“Indie artists need the money! Sean Paul’s loaded.”
-“The percentage of profit lost to the big name/big label act is in the drop-in-the-bucket range, whereas the indie band doesn’t have the enormous crowd backing for their income. Moreover, the big label act only gets a few cents on the dollar per song after the label is paid, while the indie act is more likely to be releasing their album themselves, and therefore stands to receive more profit directly, which they can convert to further music-making.”
-“I feel less bad about stealing the music of people who have tons and tons of money anyway.”
Many students thought it made no difference.
-“Intellectual property is the same thing whether we’re dealing with Madonna or Bearbot.”
-“I download all my music, I don’t think it’s wrong, and I think that the record companies need to accept the way things are now and stop slapping lawsuits on everyone.”
-“All these bands should be making money from their super-lucrative concert tours.”
-“Either way you are taking money from an artist.”
I then asked whether downloading a movie without permission was more or less unethical than downloading music without permission.
The people who found downloading movies more unethical gave these reasons:
-“Movies cost more so you are taking something more valuable.”
-“Movies involve the contributions of hundreds and hundreds of people who are already underpaid. As far as I know, recording an album requires significantly fewer people.”
-“My dad is a movie theatre manager. In light of this, I grew up hearing about how when people download movies, it takes away from the commissions of the theatres. I don’t know that there’s really a comparable issue in music because people still go to concerts, buy merchandise from the stores, and things of that nature.”
-“Movies are long.”
Half of responders said it made no difference, and gave these reasons:
-“You’re taking money away from both companies.”
-“They’re both under copyright.”
Interviews and Short Films
Second, I conducted and filmed a series of twelve individual interviews with a similarly diverse group of students. I aimed to cover freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior opinions with a range of opinions and academic background. I asked questions to gauge the extent of their knowledge about broader intellectual property concepts, then posed ethical scenarios, such as “To what extent do you think ripping a library disc is unethical?” and “Do you think downloading a copyrighted movie without permission is more or less ethical than downloading a copyrighted song without permission?” These surveys and interviews not only provided information about the ideas of the general Yale population, but served as convenient ways to initiate conversations about the issues and stimulate dialogue. After each interview, I informed my interview subject about Yale’s policies, and about our group’s website.
I edited these interviews together with the intent of posing a complicated question, providing a range of student opinions, and directing the viewer to the group’s website. I aimed to keep these movies short and tightly-edited in order to keep the viewer’s attention online. Since the object of our project is to inform the Yale community, I distributed the films to many different groups on Yale’s campus.
1. How unethical is it to download copyrighted content without permission?
2. Do you feel safer downloading copyrighted content without permission on Yale’s networks or off of campus networks?
3. Is it more unethical to download copyrighted content without permission from an established artist or an up-and-coming one?
4. How ethical is it to borrow a cd or a dvd from the library and rip it to your computer?
The spirit of the post-modern attitude is embodied in attacking the idea of the fixed symbol, in turn creating new definitions to what we assume as absolute. A rub between disparate concepts can create a fertile ground to co-opt and re-purpose symbols in order to produce new forms. In other words, bestowing our respective toolsets as practitioners upon works from a not-too-distant past can manipulate it, now re-rendering it within the present.
Utilizing our self-initiated work as test subjects (images positioned around the perimeter), we (Hank Huang, Vance Wellenstein, Zakary Jensen and Zachary Klauck) created a web of links tracing commonalities in reference within our respective projects (images positioned towards the center). In doing so, we found significant amount of overlap, all of which supporting our ideas of reduced restrictions with regards to intellectual property that we advocated for throughout the duration of the semester. It is through this practice that we as designers are invested into how found elements that function in opposition to one another can become assembled, and through this assemblage unexpected meanings are forced to emerge from the world. It illustrates the fact that the notion of the truly original work is false, and that instead those forms we take ownership in are actually built upon the backs of the generations that preceded us.
For my final project, I wanted to explore collaborative music production and create a piece of music collaboratively here at Yale. Collaborative music production is where numerous individuals who may not know each other, or even be geographically near to each other, contribute to a song in pieces. One person may write a bass line, put it up on the internet and ask someone to record a great sax solo over it. There are many different permutations of this pattern, but has frequently allowed the music to be “copylefted” as each person contributes something new to the piece of music.
Currently, Indaba Music has been put in the spotlight for its increasingly successful website www.indabamusic.com and the collaborative music experience it provides. Just recently even, Wired magazine has asked its readers to crowdsource a song using Indaba’s innovative online software. Check out this link for more http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/help-wiredcom-crowdsource-this-song/
During this project, I got a chance to ask some questions to one of the founders of Indaba, Dan Zaccagnino, and learn about some of the challenges collaborative music making presents, and also the ways they have been able to make it work. Continue reading “Collaborative Music Production – by “Alexander F””→
RepEconomy.com and RepEconomy on twitter is the final project of Andrew Gu, Avi Sutton, Kai Chao, Meryln Deng, Sebastian Park, and Shirley Berry.
The goal of this website is to expand on the growing base of information about reputation economies. This site does not represent all different branches of reputation economies, but it does include different perspectives on how reputation economies are viewed. We also hope to provide information regarding how reputation economies can be studied (in our game theory and experiment section).
Generally defined, a reputation economy is a group whose “currency” relies on a measure of reputation (diversely defined) within a community or domain. Reputation measures, while heterogeneous in type, are based on a collection of opinions that other entities hold about the consumable goods. These opinions come from ratings that are centralized through an algorithm.
On our web site, you will find:
Legal implications of real-world reputation economies
Our own “car sales” experiment to measure the persistence of reputation over time
Examples of real-world reputation economies that span from games to non-profit reputation economies
Game theory implications of reputation economies
Additional resources for further reading
Link to our twitter
Link to our presentation from class, which includes a summary of our project initiatives as well as questions that need to be considered.
We are more than happy to answer any questions. We encourage you to browse through the website.
For our final project, Logan, Michael, and I created a short film about a normal college student named Jack who tries to go through a day following copyright law. He soon realizes how difficult the task is and hilarity (hopefully) ensues. A scholarly professor type keeps a running tab throughout the day of Jack’s various violations and provides brief explanations of some of the legal issues. The film should illustrate the massive gap between the letter of the law and the way we live our lives.
We were inspired by articles like the Tehranian reading in which a law professor racks up multi-million dollar damages for seemingly innocuous behavior. By portraying the logical conclusion of copyright laws, hopefully we’ve helped in the crusade to unmask absurdity.
It’s been a great class and I hope everyone enjoys the video!
Because of issues with the file size, the video had to be uploaded as 8 separate clips. The following is the link to the first clip of 8. The rest of the clips will automatically play when the first one is complete.
Re:Re:Re:Mix is a project about the issues and implications surrounding fair use and copyright law. In 2007 YouTube released Content ID, a system that enables copyright holders to choose in advance whether they want to track, monetize, or remove their content from YouTube entirely. The system uses fingerprinting technology to identify a copyrighted work by comparing audio and video tracks. If either match, the video will be flagged by the system and the copyright holder will be notified. The problem is that Content ID doesn’t consider fair use. And it can’t, because only a human can discern between an infringing work and one that falls under fair use, a doctrine which allows for commentary, news reporting, research, teaching and scholarship, and criticism.
As makers we feel it is important to highlight these problems and inform other artists of their rights. All creative works are referential to some degree, and to prohibit works from entering the zeitgeist of Internet culture is in direct conflict with the original intention of copyright law: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
The evolution of Facebook and Twitter has been a tale of two cities. Facebook valued privacy, and in turn, closed systems, for both its users and developers. Twitter, on the other hand, built its site on openness. As a result, Twitter has excelled in public information (like aggregating “real-time” trends, and enabling the Iranian election protests), while Facebook has remained the go-to platform for sharing and consuming private information (like personal photos, small group events, “likes”, etc.). Last week, Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company’s new Open Graph platform, which marks a substantial step towards openness for the social network, and could have a profound impact on the rest of the web.
To users, social networks are only as valuable as the number of people on them, multiplied by their willingness to share information. Twitter represents 100 million people who are freely sharing their thoughts with the rest of the world (you don’t need to be “following” someone or logged in to access >99% of tweets), but these thoughts are refined to 140 characters, and typically aren’t very intimate. Facebook, on the other hand, gives you no-holds-barred access to the personal information of your friends, but this group usually doesn’t exceed 1,000 people. And so we’ve ended up with two very different treasure troves of data: a little information from a lot of people in Twitter, and a lot of information from only a few people — from a given user’s perspective at least — in Facebook.
To developers who build third-party apps for these platforms, the difference between open and closed can have an even greater impact. From early on Twitter offered open, flexible, easy-to-use tools to interact with its service, and as a result, today more than 75% of Twitter’s traffic comes from 3rd-party apps. Facebook, in stark contrast, initially adopted a “walled-garden” approach, in which 3rd-party developers were constrained by strict rules, an inability to use Facebook data outside of the site itself, and a dizzying, closed programming interface that made it difficult to code anything for Facebook in the first place. Facebook’s Apps platform flopped (with one notable exception, the social gaming giant Zynga, which allegedly makes more money than Facebook, but that’s another story). The social network tried to play catch-up with a string of services that slowly increased openness at the expense of privacy: its Beacon program allowed the websites of big companies to interact with Facebook directly, but this ignited a barrage of privacy complaints and was shut down; then Facebook Connect enabled any website to replace its sign-in process with Facebook’s, but this didn’t gain particularly widespread adoption; and then last week Facebook finally figured it out.
Facebook’s new Open Graph platform could be the beginning of the end for Twitter. To date, Twitter has competed with Facebook by offering a more open platform, easier-to-use developer tools, and better social integration. With Open Graph, though, Facebook catches up in one fell swoop. Twitter will soon launch its new “Annotations” tool that will enable longer-format tweets more similar to status updates. While this may seem like a step forward, it is a risky move for Twitter, and a sign of the changing tides. At this time last year Facebook was trying to emulate Twitter: they streamlined their posting interface, highlighted the role of public status updates, and emphasized Facebook search. But now the tables have turned, and Twitter is becoming more like Facebook. I worry that for a company that rose to prominence purely on its simplicity and ease-of-use, ANY major feature additions (and Twitter has had virtually none since it started 4 years ago) risk undermining its own reason for existence.
I really hope that Twitter survives the Open Graph wave, because if it doesn’t, Facebook’s singular reign over the web could have some scary implications for users. I’m optimistic, though, because I think Twitter’s true potential — gleaning brand new insights from huge amounts of real-time data — hasn’t even begun to be harnessed.
Facebook’s recently announced Open Graph platform adds a social layer of information to the websites you already use. When you go to a site that incorporates it (and assuming you’re logged into Facebook, which is a pretty good bet considering nearly 500 million people are) you can see whom of your friends have signed-up for the service, or read the article, or bought the shoes, or the downloaded the band’s album. This social context is a new and important step for the web.
Google has defined the past decade of the Internet with its subtle but revolutionary insight that the value of a web page is related to the number of other web pages that link to it (which is at the heart of its famed Page Rank algorithm). Facebook could define the next decade of the web with a related but critically different idea: that the value of a web page is related to how many of your friends link to it.
So what does this mean for the future of the web? Arguably, Facebook’s new Open Graph puts it in a position to become the single most dominant platform on the Internet, and on a scale that we’ve never before seen. With 5 times more users than Twitter, access to deeper and more private information, and now, it’s open policy that enables painless deep-integration with third-party sites, Facebook could become the default standard of the Internet. One could imagine a world in which every sign-in process, every comment, every search, even, funnels through Facebook’s back-end.
This future, though, has frightening implications for privacy and competition. What has made the Internet so great in the first place is that it is the most open platform ever. It was set up without an official central governing body, and with no critical closed standards, so that anyone could use its simple tools to broadcast their information to the world. Facebook’s potential role as a backbone in the system threatens this openness. At the end of the day Facebook is a for-profit corporation with its own interests, and nothing prevents it from using its power to squash competitors, or using its data to entice advertisers at the expense of basic privacy.
The idea of adding a social layer to the web is a powerful one, but having it controlled by a single company is scary. Facebook’s Open Graph is less of an Open Graph, and more of a Facebook Graph. We can only hope that a truly open standard emerges so that the future of the Internet isn’t at the whim of a historically closed company.
Yale Law Tech 