Remix culture. Remix culture, sometimes read-write culture, is a society that allows and encourages derivative works by combining or editing existing materials to produce a new creative work or product.[2][3] A remix culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. While a common practice of artists of all domains throughout human history,[4] the growth of exclusive copyright restrictions in the last several decades limits this practice more and more by the legal chilling effect.[5] As reaction Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who considers remixing a desirable concept for human creativity, works since the early 2000s[6][7] on a transfer of the remixing concept into the digital age.
Lessig founded the Creative Commons in 2001 which released Licenses as tools to enable remix culture again, as remixing is legally prevented by the default exclusive copyright regime applied currently on intellectual property. Saving-American-Democracy. Private property. Sign on a chain-link fence warning the public against trespassing on private property. Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption.
Categorization of collective property can be indeterminable, such as in a not-for-profit private university; or determinable, such as in the case of a legal partnership. History[edit] Prior to the 18th century, "property" was generally used in reference to land ownership. In England, "property" did not have a legal definition until the 17th century.[3] Economic perspectives[edit] Liberal perspectives[edit] Austrian School perspective[edit] Socialist perspectives[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit] Intellectual property. Intellectual property (IP) rights are the legally recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.
Although many of the legal principles governing intellectual property rights have evolved over centuries, it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used, and not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the majority of the world.[2] The British Statute of Anne (1710) and the Statute of Monopolies (1624) are now seen as the origins of copyright and patent law respectively.[3] History[edit] Types[edit] Patents[edit] Copyright[edit] Morality[edit] Legal / Copyright. Copyright Quick Guide. U.S. Copyright Office. Big Thinkers - Lawrence Lessig [Law Professor]
The Big Thinker's Guide to SOPA & PIPA | Think Tank. One need not read all 145 pages of the SOPA and PIPA bills to understand the debate in Washington DC. Big Think has provided a brief guide to the issue for your convenience. Legislative Overview & Supporting and Opposing Interest Groups OpenCongress.org provides a great summary of the legislation, its status in Congress, as well as links to news and blogs. The site also features a comprehensive list of interest groups who have supported and opposed the legislation and more information pertaining to the "money trail. " Background Below are five definitive, plain-language guides to the issue, the arguments, and implications of the legislation. Jonathan Zittrain The Economist Wall Street Journal New York Times PC World Blackout Pictures and opinions from the January, 18 2012 SOPA and PIPA online protest: Talking Points Memo Forbes Arguments: These links offer a more in-depth look into the argument and the legal justifications for and against SOPA and PIPA.
Bloomberg Stanford Law Review Online. Stop Online Piracy Act. Failed United States bill Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in existing laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed.
The bill received strong, bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It also received support from the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Governors Association, The National Conference of Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, the AFL–CIO and 22 trade unions, and the National Consumers League.[2] History[edit] Goals[edit] According to Rep. Sponsor Rep. PROTECT IP Act. The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010.
A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was introduced on October 26, 2011.[6] In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill would be postponed until issues raised about the bill were resolved.[7][8][9] Content[edit] The bill defines infringement as distribution of illegal copies, counterfeit goods, or anti-digital rights management technology. Infringement exists if "facts or circumstances suggest [the site] is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described Supporters[edit] Legislators[edit] The PROTECT IP Act has received bipartisan support in the Senate, with introduction sponsorship by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and, as of December 17, 2011, co-sponsorship by 40 Senators.[20] The U.S. Others[edit] #3038363. SOPA Emergency IP list: So if these ass-fucks in DC decide to ruin the internet, here’s how to access your favorite sites in the event of a DNS takedown tumblr.com 174.121.194.34 wikipedia.org 208.80.152.201 # News bbc.co.uk 212.58.241.131 aljazeera.com 198.78.201.252 # Social media reddit.com 72.247.244.88 imgur.com 173.231.140.219 google.com 74.125.157.99 youtube.com 74.125.65.91 yahoo.com 98.137.149.56 hotmail.com 65.55.72.135 bing.com 65.55.175.254 digg.com 64.191.203.30 theonion.com 97.107.137.164 hush.com 65.39.178.43 gamespot.com 216.239.113.172 ign.com 69.10.25.46 cracked.com 98.124.248.77 sidereel.com 144.198.29.112 github.com 207.97.227.239 # Torrent sites thepiratebay.org 194.71.107.15 mininova.com 80.94.76.5 btjunkie.com 93.158.65.211 demonoid.com 62.149.24.66 demonoid.me 62.149.24.67 # Social networking facebook.com 69.171.224.11 twitter.com 199.59.149.230 tumblr.com 174.121.194.34 livejournal.com 209.200.154.225 dreamwidth.org 69.174.244.50.
Press Releases | OSGATA. OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint. US court to decide if human genes can be patented « Trust Us Online. The justices’ decision will likely resolve an ongoing battle between scientists who believe that genes carrying the secrets of life should not be exploited for commercial gain and companies that argue that a patent is a reward for years of expensive research that moves science forward. The current case involves Myriad Genetics Inc. of Salt Lake City, which has patents on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad’s BRACAnalysis test looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer. But the American Civil Liberties Union challenged those patents, arguing that genes couldn’t be patented, and in March 2010, a New York district court agreed. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now twice ruled that genes can be patented, in Myriad’s case because the isolated DNA has a “markedly different chemical structure” from DNA within the body.
Tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation, and sociology. However the concept, as originally developed, has also received criticism for not taking into account the many other factors operating to enforce or agree on regulation in this scenario.
Lloyd's pamphlet[edit] In 1833, the English economist William Forster Lloyd published a pamphlet which included an example of herders sharing a common parcel of land on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In English villages, shepherds had sometimes grazed their sheep in common areas, and sheep ate grass more severely than cows. Garrett Hardin's article[edit] [edit] As a metaphor, the tragedy of the commons should not be taken too literally. Elinor Ostrom. Elinor "Lin" Ostrom (born Elinor Claire Awan;[2] August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political economist[3][4][5] whose work was associated with the New Institutional Economics and the resurgence of political economy.[6] In 2009, she shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Oliver E.
Williamson for "her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons".[7] To date, she remains the only woman so honored. Ostrom lived in Bloomington, Indiana and served on the faculty of both Indiana University and Arizona State University. She held the rank of Distinguished Professor at Indiana University and was the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington, as well as Research Professor and the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University in Tempe. Personal life and education[edit] Career[edit] 1990. BBC World Service - The Forum, 05/03/2011. Tragedy of the Commons | Microeconomics.