I have always thought that USA is without culture. Only lately they start to have some history there. The copyright law history is also one of them. Where at first everything was uncontrolled ans based on some self-managed regulations. Legislation reaction was made only if a major disagreement started.
I was surprised that in England as soon as the first printing equipment arrived, the legislation was made to control the outcomes. I also understand that it was mostly because of the religion revolution, it meant that everything that carried information had to be controlled. But on the other hand it showed how good planners English royalty with advisers was - they felt right away, that this might be a threat and acted before something bad actually happened.
Usa acts on the contrary, they make laws after they have got their first defeat. Europe on the other hand kind of has common knowledge, we are more paranoid and this means we also try to protect us in advance.
This makes me just laugh that USA signed a Barne convention 100 years after it was first ratified in UK. This is exactly what USA has always thought about themselves, they think that they are untouchable and those things that apply to others are not compulsory for them.
As said at the end of chapter 14, all these laws and restrictions worked well until internet came. Although there still are many who act according them there are many people who do not feel that copyright has to be protected or at least it should be shared for free. Sharing information through internet is low-cost and easy, no shipping expenses or paper wasting. I am curious which side of the world is able to control internet content quicker and better (not only copyright but also all kinds of (other) criminal activity.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Overview of 3some wikidot
3some Wikidot work about hacker ethics is very well thought through and 4 parts of the work each have their own meaning and direction.
Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0
1st part: Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0 is talking about what differences have Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 in hacker point of view. What advantages or disadvantages Web 2.0 has. How for average person words "hacking/hacker" usually mean something bad and even criminal while historically and for those who know, it has a totally different meaning.
Structure of the article is really good, it is logical and easy to read. Material that used for the article and seen under Bibliography is excellent. Although reading the article I had a feeling for couple of times, that the article is all about putting together what others (knowers) have told, not what actually writer thinks or a deeper analyze would conclude with comparing different sources and viewpoints.
About the structure again. It was so easy to follow the sources as they were all linking and an overview box also appeared on references. It should not judging the content of the article, but it is important while reading it, because I can feel that everything I wold like to get more details about, are there.
Applicability Of Hacker Ethics
Olga in her article is talking about what purposes hacker ethic has since 90-s compared to 60-s when it actually started and was accessed to limited group of people only. This article has beginnin, content and also a conclusion which makes it really easuy to follow and understand. Althought I first felt that it might have nothing new to tell compared to first Stacy article, it did. It did not compare so much web 1.0 and 2.0 but the actual written/unwritten and followed ethics of real hackers. It talked about what difficulties have hackers had (as they have been considered as responsible for bad activities) and how they try to cope with changing and worldwide internet. Although hacker ethics approach is the same, there is difference on what hackers actually concentrate on now.
Basic Info About Hackers
Maria concentrated much on what actually "hacker" means. She has listed definitions from different sources. Her overview tells that "hacker" has never originally meant someone who deliberately harms somethings/one, but for wider public it has just turned out this way. Maria also points out that I remember from Ethics and Law reading materials - "One should not call him/herself a hacker, but others should describe the person this way". Basically there is nothing else to say about Maria article, well done, several sources found and refers them nicely.
Development of content in 21st century
Taavi starts to give an overview of most commonly used programs/software/websites connected to web 2.0 and his short explanations facts are interesting. But it seems like he did not have enough time to end his article, as the last sentence is really short and no descriptions are there about Second life or other 3D games. As his article is already a conclusion of different Web 2.0 capabilities, there is no need to have final paragraph to make a conclusion.
The main article is put together by 4 personal articles made by team-members. This brings together the idea behind all 4 parts and shows reader what was actually the purpose of all four. The conclusion states that team-member hope their article can show for some people what "hacker" actually means and what it is considered to be. It also concludes that web 2.0 would not have happened without hacker ethics and the most important part of it - control but share.
3some showed that a team can work together even if they are not in the same room. I would say this part actually shows what web 2.0 is really about, all different commmunication channels were used: special forum for 3some, probably emails, some instant messaging systems and weekly discussions as well. This is how knowledge is shared in today's web 2.0.
Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0
1st part: Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0 is talking about what differences have Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 in hacker point of view. What advantages or disadvantages Web 2.0 has. How for average person words "hacking/hacker" usually mean something bad and even criminal while historically and for those who know, it has a totally different meaning.
Structure of the article is really good, it is logical and easy to read. Material that used for the article and seen under Bibliography is excellent. Although reading the article I had a feeling for couple of times, that the article is all about putting together what others (knowers) have told, not what actually writer thinks or a deeper analyze would conclude with comparing different sources and viewpoints.
About the structure again. It was so easy to follow the sources as they were all linking and an overview box also appeared on references. It should not judging the content of the article, but it is important while reading it, because I can feel that everything I wold like to get more details about, are there.
Applicability Of Hacker Ethics
Olga in her article is talking about what purposes hacker ethic has since 90-s compared to 60-s when it actually started and was accessed to limited group of people only. This article has beginnin, content and also a conclusion which makes it really easuy to follow and understand. Althought I first felt that it might have nothing new to tell compared to first Stacy article, it did. It did not compare so much web 1.0 and 2.0 but the actual written/unwritten and followed ethics of real hackers. It talked about what difficulties have hackers had (as they have been considered as responsible for bad activities) and how they try to cope with changing and worldwide internet. Although hacker ethics approach is the same, there is difference on what hackers actually concentrate on now.
Basic Info About Hackers
Maria concentrated much on what actually "hacker" means. She has listed definitions from different sources. Her overview tells that "hacker" has never originally meant someone who deliberately harms somethings/one, but for wider public it has just turned out this way. Maria also points out that I remember from Ethics and Law reading materials - "One should not call him/herself a hacker, but others should describe the person this way". Basically there is nothing else to say about Maria article, well done, several sources found and refers them nicely.
Development of content in 21st century
Taavi starts to give an overview of most commonly used programs/software/websites connected to web 2.0 and his short explanations facts are interesting. But it seems like he did not have enough time to end his article, as the last sentence is really short and no descriptions are there about Second life or other 3D games. As his article is already a conclusion of different Web 2.0 capabilities, there is no need to have final paragraph to make a conclusion.
The main article is put together by 4 personal articles made by team-members. This brings together the idea behind all 4 parts and shows reader what was actually the purpose of all four. The conclusion states that team-member hope their article can show for some people what "hacker" actually means and what it is considered to be. It also concludes that web 2.0 would not have happened without hacker ethics and the most important part of it - control but share.
3some showed that a team can work together even if they are not in the same room. I would say this part actually shows what web 2.0 is really about, all different commmunication channels were used: special forum for 3some, probably emails, some instant messaging systems and weekly discussions as well. This is how knowledge is shared in today's web 2.0.
Chapter 20 - There are no free lunches?!
Copyright laws and restrictions are part of our everyday life. Although some bands may want to share their music for free in charge or some software developers would like their programs to spread free to everyone, we are used to that there are some who do not expect to get copyright on their outcomes and there are others that do.
Big companies have all the means to protect their programs/results. It gives them funds to develop things. It also gives user the right to accuse the company on something if it does not work the way it should. If we talk about freeware, not copyrighted and changed by all then there is noone who would be actually responsible. Maybe it won't but what happens if it caos happens - things do not work the way they are expected and noone can be reached who could fix it quickly or even know how to fix it.
Although I want to use musiv free of charge and computer programs that I do not have to pay for (and free ones are mostly quicker developed than those for fee from big companies).
If I talk baout computers, then there is bunch of computer users who are happy to pay for their oc with all needed software and tey do not want to spend time on thinking what browser they need to surf in the internet, they even do not know that they could use 2 browsers at the same time in their pc (it is a real-life example of users who have been using computer for years, every day and not only for work). I think the copyright laws gives an easier life to a person that does not want to think what and how to get, but is happy to get a completed product from a shop and start using it when he/she goes home.
On 20th chapter was an example about a band that decided their fans have to get their music for free. Only the fans can get it who know where to look for it. But there is a small change that someone who would also like it, but does not know he/she can't get it from a store for reasonable price, would actually see it. Most free products end up spread form hand to hand or by internet, but they do not have moderator who would be really interested on getting the product for so many end-users.
Big companies have all the means to protect their programs/results. It gives them funds to develop things. It also gives user the right to accuse the company on something if it does not work the way it should. If we talk about freeware, not copyrighted and changed by all then there is noone who would be actually responsible. Maybe it won't but what happens if it caos happens - things do not work the way they are expected and noone can be reached who could fix it quickly or even know how to fix it.
Although I want to use musiv free of charge and computer programs that I do not have to pay for (and free ones are mostly quicker developed than those for fee from big companies).
If I talk baout computers, then there is bunch of computer users who are happy to pay for their oc with all needed software and tey do not want to spend time on thinking what browser they need to surf in the internet, they even do not know that they could use 2 browsers at the same time in their pc (it is a real-life example of users who have been using computer for years, every day and not only for work). I think the copyright laws gives an easier life to a person that does not want to think what and how to get, but is happy to get a completed product from a shop and start using it when he/she goes home.
On 20th chapter was an example about a band that decided their fans have to get their music for free. Only the fans can get it who know where to look for it. But there is a small change that someone who would also like it, but does not know he/she can't get it from a store for reasonable price, would actually see it. Most free products end up spread form hand to hand or by internet, but they do not have moderator who would be really interested on getting the product for so many end-users.
Chapter 18 - does my "science" belong to me if I make it public and free
I have studied Psychology in Tartu University, which basically means that I have some idea of how science articles are made, citated and shared. I have done many researches and used several databases to find either articles on previous works or even books about some certain topic.
I have seen how many authors are willing to give their article for students for free. I have never understood why some do not. But then again it might not be because of the authot himself, but as every scientists has to have some funds from somewhere (well, basically only a sutdent can to some research for free, and even in this case some funds like schooling is used for the student), then there are "higher" people who may say if the results can be made public for everybody or only abstract can be public and usually free.
Bsaically an Estonian psychology student never buys an article for their researhc, we either use those that are for free, take only the abstract or ignore the results all together. Fortunatelly Tartu University has agreements with several science databases that allows students to get articles from hundreds of science journals all over the world. But still even in those systems there are some articles that ask for further payment to be able to read them fully.
Although I understand that an author should protect their "inventions/results" in some way, I feel that if those results are not free for everybody to get, who are interested, it will obstuct further quick development.
I have seen how many authors are willing to give their article for students for free. I have never understood why some do not. But then again it might not be because of the authot himself, but as every scientists has to have some funds from somewhere (well, basically only a sutdent can to some research for free, and even in this case some funds like schooling is used for the student), then there are "higher" people who may say if the results can be made public for everybody or only abstract can be public and usually free.
Bsaically an Estonian psychology student never buys an article for their researhc, we either use those that are for free, take only the abstract or ignore the results all together. Fortunatelly Tartu University has agreements with several science databases that allows students to get articles from hundreds of science journals all over the world. But still even in those systems there are some articles that ask for further payment to be able to read them fully.
Although I understand that an author should protect their "inventions/results" in some way, I feel that if those results are not free for everybody to get, who are interested, it will obstuct further quick development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)