digital taxonomy – Learningcreep I’m sure that I might be forgiven for at first supposing that this week’s topic, “Class Resources and Intellectual Property”, might prove to be a little dull, but I was wrong. Before reading Chapter 8: “Copyright, Intellectual Property, and Open Educational Resources”, I watched the signposted video of Lawrence Lessig’s 2007 TED Talk, “Laws that Choke Creativity”. Immediately, I was captivated by the idea of remix that was presented and what this means, not just in terms of the law, but in terms of culture and what it means for teaching and learning in a digital age. New digital tools give us the ability to create new kinds of digital texts or artefacts, which often incorporate and appropriate the works of others. Referred to as ‘remix’, this practice of borrowing and building on existing works is becoming very common. The concept of remix made me think of the digital reincarnation of Bloom’s taxonomy, which has ‘creating’ as its pinnacle. Image sources:
BBC World Service - The Forum, 05/03/2011 Tragedy of the commons Self-interests causing depletion of a shared resource The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed, and criticised, in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. The metaphor is the title of a 1968 essay by ecologist Garrett Hardin. The principal concern of Hardin's essay was overpopulation of the planet. Some scholars have argued that over-exploitation of the common resource is by no means inevitable, since the individuals concerned may be able to achieve mutual restraint by consensus. Other criticisms have focused on Hardin's racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of colour.[3][4] Expositions[edit] Classical[edit] Lloyd's pamphlet[edit] System archetype[edit]
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.
#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
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. Economic perspectives[edit] Liberal perspectives[edit] Austrian School perspective[edit] Socialist perspectives[edit] A plaque marking state property in Jūrmala. Personal property versus means of production[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit]
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. Opponents argued that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire Internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. History[edit] The bill establishes a two-step process for intellectual property-rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. Goals[edit]
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]
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. 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. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation Bloomberg Stanford Law Review Online
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. “It’s wrong to think that something as naturally occurring as DNA can be patented by a single company that limits scientific research and the free exchange of ideas,” said Chris Hansen, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Like this: Like Loading...
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]