Questions

Answer on this page's discussion tab one of the following questions or respond to another student's comment:

In the way that Lessig states that the Kodak’s biggest breakthrough “was not economic. It was social.” (33) Are currently contested technologies great implications economic or social?
In photography’s history “Freedom was the default.” (34) With the advent of digital rights permission is the default. Is there a reason to choose either freedom or permission initially (with or without the flexibility to change later)?
Lessig describes the new languages that we are brought up with, and simulataneously shining light on the possibility, “the crucial point: it could be both read write.” (37) Do we have a read-write culture around the picked-on old format: text?
Of all the innovation and advantages to new media such as blogs and collaborative software, can you foresee any malevolent uses and should they be regulated rather than receiving free passes for being novel inventions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlz (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Lawrence Lessig, brings up some good points and more things to say. Pop-test1 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, his points were really insightful. Amlz (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More indentation Pop-test1 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Question 1

These currently contested technologies have, in my opinion, greater social implications than economic. As Lessig states, we have so much opportunity for true democracy of media and freedom of expression. It is the opposing argument (that their implications are largely economic) however, that is driving modern digital copyright legislation, and promoting permission as the default. Amlz (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amiz that currently contested technologies have greater social implications. A noticeable sum of products, virtual or physical, deal with how human's communicate. Products such as facebook or google are created for optimal user interaction. Facebook is estimated to be worth billions of dollars thrives on user interaction, the ease and simplicity to customize one's wall and information and to easily access friends information. In addition, Facebook has integrated their technology with many different platforms include the whole spectrum cell phones. Facebook's goal seems to streamline all types of social media into one mammoth of a tool, even diving into Facebook email services. Of course, their probably is some underlying motivation to create such virtual, but I believe the end goal is to be able to create a social phenomenon comparable to the Kodak. Dtslife (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The implications of new technology are always social first and economic second. Although a capitalist society will ultimately look to exploit these technologies for financial gain, it is the utilitarian nature of the technology that has the greatest influence over society. It is not about the money that the technology can make, but the lives that it can change. A modern example of the revolution that the Kodak created we can see, in abstract, with the digital revolution that Facebook has created. Technology by the people and for the people; altruistic in nature. The effect that Facebook has is primarily social because of how it has changed the way people communicate in their lives (and Kodak changed how people document their lives). Aeforrest (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently contested technologies undoubtedly have both economic and social implications, but the social implications exist in their own right as well as branching out from the economic ones. The economic implications may include a restructuring of how media is distributed and the laws that govern it, but the implications continue to grow in the social arena: attitudes change regarding the "right" to media, bringing unprecedented attention (and criticism) to the current status quo of media ownership. Though changing "attitudes" may be difficult to empirically qualify and quantify, they would theoretically have broad implications for both the individual and the group, as new perspectives and communities emerge in response to the changing social dynamics of modern technologies. Bromanski (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

I think that freedom by default, with the flexibility to change later, is the best course of action for new technologies. This allows for people to readily explore the potentials of the medium without restriction, and allows for revision later, if it is found that some permissions need to be mandatory. Amlz (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of digital rights permission, I think the default choice should be permission initially, with the flexibility to change later. From an economical standpoint, having complete permission freedom takes away the incentive for producers to invest in research due to a sharp decline in profit associated with theft. The marginal costs of piracy and duplication is near zero, yet the parent companies stand to lose millions in potential profit during the product lifecycle. I argue for flexibility to change later because having the opportunity for permission freedom allows for better and more efficient collaborative development of certain products (ie: open source software). Both sides of the arguments have benefits and drawbacks, but I feel that having the initial choice set to permission encourages more growth in the private sector, which ultimately adds value to the economy. Dlchu1230 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that freedom should be the initial choice. If the cost to create a photograph or form of media is close to zero, this should be the market price for the item. I do not think this practice would put a damper of innovation. I think this would restrict people from making money off of things they did not put work into. If the market price for a CD is $20 and the price of production is close to zero, a record company can make a ridiculous amount of money off of close to no work. Christopher998 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the market price of media (or anything) be closely related to the production cost? Why should people be restricted from making money off of things that they 'did not put work into'? Moreover, even if we accept that we want to avoid people making money off of little work, how do we judge the standard of work? Without a reasonable way to gauge how much work goes in to something, suggesting that people should not make much money off of things that do not take much work just doesn't work too well. (There are much broader problems I have with the suggestion as well, but for the sake of brevity I'm avoiding just general problems with it.) Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3

I think that text is a much more read-write culture than some of the new media are, not to say that text is completely read-write, or that new media is completely read-only. It is easy to start up a blog and write about something (which I still consider "text"), or to write a letter to express your views. It is significantly more difficult to say, make a documentary about a topic, and garner it the same level of exposure. Granted, I think that these new media are becoming increasingly more read-write, and will definitely be more accessable in the future. Amlz (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we have a read and write culture when it comes to text because of its inaccessibility to the masses. One of the biggest inaccessibility is the lack of access to education. Not everyone in the world is literate enough to have access to text in order to read or write. And those that are literate are mainly engaging in reading rather than writing because they have too few mediums to create/write. However, if we consider new technologies such as blogging, it is a different story. Those who are literate and can read, they are able to write. Though, it is a different matter entirely if what they write is reaching the masses because of over-saturation of blogs. Akawow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that nobody reads anymore. If someone tells you that they read they are a liar. The increasing accessibility to media production and distribution is geared towards making the mundane seem important and convince Joe Schmoes of the world that the "art" they produce is vital for the world to see. The modes for writing and distribution that are becoming increasingly available produces instant ego gratification by displaying to the world what they find interesting. Rsryan (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But really, what era of human history did not have its share of egotistical laypeople expressing trite thoughts through a certain outlet to achieve instant gratification? I think that increased accessibility and a broader audience are some of the only differences today — and they are important factors for the rare gem of an independently produced, thoughtful creation that may have gone unnoticed in another time. However, like the reelings and records of hacks and drudges of times past, our mundane thoughts and documents will be silenced and irrelevant in the future, no matter how eternally archived they are. Basically, I think text will be mostly read and rarely write (meaningfully), same as it has ever been. Hmanes (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe we live in a fully R/W culture that Lessig speaks about. This is mostly due to the strict copyright laws in place with media after 1923. However, artist like Girl Talk, who is considered a "mash-up" artist, using music from different eras and brings them together – creating and building culture for our era. Being able to manipulate images, text, video, music, to your liking is a very democratic ability to participate in. It allows someone to express ones opinion by not discriminating against socioeconomic class to the masses, and give a 'creative commons' sphere to create a social discussion. Software programs such as Linux allows users to use open-source to create and help change technology for the better. Lastly, Lessig presents the argument of allowing people to manipulate technology to truly allow us to live in a democratic society, to engage in a "town hall" discussion through the advance technology of blogs, not being tied to a specific location or time to engage in these conversations. It allows kids to express themselves though media, when they otherwise might not have an outlet to express themselves in. R/W culture is slowly making its way in society as the most democratic form of discussion and expression. Hectorromero (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 4

There will always be some way for a technology to be put to malevolent use. Whether any one technology warrants regulation as a result is completely dependent on the level of malevolence that results from it. However, if we are to regulate them, it needs to be as a result of actual, rather than perceived malevolence. Amlz (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem, to some extent, with the idea that regulation of technology needs to be exclusively founded on 'actual' malevolence. Although there is obvious danger in regulating technology based on solely theoretical risk, I have a pretty easy time conceiving of technology with a severe enough theoretical risk to warrant regulation even with an absence of demonstrated real-world problems. Obviously, this also depends somewhat on where you draw the line between 'actual' and 'perceived' malevolence, as well as what you actually mean by malevolence. Of course, reading the question on the original page now I see that the original question was pertaining to new media: I'm not sure I can foresee any risk so severe in new media forms as to warrant preregulation. I'm going to go ahead and leave the comment up anyway, though. Also, although I know it's generally bad form to edit someone else's comment, I'm going to go ahead and throw your name after yours. The instructions look like dialogue is desired, and it'll get confusing quickly without clear indication of the end of comments. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]