New Communication Technology Essay, Creative Commons

Explain what Creative Commons is and, using examples, show how it is different to other forms of copyright.

Creative commons is defined as “An organization that has defined an alternative to copyrights by filling in the gap between full copyright, in which no use is permitted without permission, and public domain, where permission is not required at all. Creative Commons' licenses let people copy and distribute the work under specific conditions, and general descriptions and legal clauses.” Creative commons works parallel with copyright. (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Creative+Commons)

In contrast to this the dentition of creative commons the explanation of copyright is “Copyright refers to laws that regulate the use of the work of a creator, such as an artist or author. This includes copying, distributing, altering and displaying creative, literary and other types of work. Unless otherwise stated in a contract, the author or creator of a work retains the copyright.” (http://graphicdesign.about.com/od/legalglossary/g/copyright.htm)
With regard to copyright, the idea cannot be protected itself but the physical use of the idea, which includes things like an artwork or a novel that is covered entirely under copyright law.

The goal of creative commons is a way to extend copyright and allow sharing of creative works and also modification of the originals by others. The author of the work can choose the level of protection that they want creative commons to reserve. This is one of the main differences between creative commons and copyright. Creative commons goes by the policy some rights reserved which allows the works to be possibly susceptible to reproduction and alteration without having to seek permission from the creator as the permission has already been granted through creative commons. This is in contrast to copyright, which agrees to all rights reserved so the product is completely reserved to the creator and if someone would like to reproduce the work they would have to seek permission from the creator. Creative commons is a free organization that is not for profit, where as with copyright does make a considerable amount of profit as, if someone wants to copyright their work under all rights reserved they must pay for it. Another way in which copyright makes its profit is that if another person wants to reproduce that work they must purchase it from the original copyright holder. From this perspective copyright is a business out to make a profit from the original creations of artist who has chosen to have their work protected.

To highlight the difference between creative commons and copyright, here is a list of the components of creative commons that a person can choose from when considering having their work placed under creative commons -
· Attribution – Which lets others reproduce your work but only if they give credit to you.
· Non-commercial – You let others reproduce but for non-commercial uses only
· No Derivative Works – Let others reproduce your work yet no derivative works based upon it.
· Share Alike – Let others reproduce your work only under a licence identical to the licence that governs your work.

An example of creative commons and how it is different to copyright is the website Wikepedia, which is a website that can be publically viewed by all and altered, reproduce, replicate and reference. A positive to the aspect of creative commons in regard to Wikepedia this is that all information is widely available globally and people can use and interpret it as they wish without having to worry about the legal implications of copyright. A negative aspect of this is that with anyone being able to edit or alter the information present on Wikepedia there is no telling if the information is reliable or not as the original source can be altered. Therefore referencing information from Wikipedia can never be a reliable source.

“A copyright gives the owner complete right over their work, and also protects it against any unauthorized usage on the Internet or through any other media.”(www.freelegaladvicehelp.com/copyrights/creative-common/Difference-Between-Copyright-And-Creative-Commons) Creative commons is very different to copyright as the laws are much less strict regarding something that is protected under copyright, for example. In regards to copyright with reference to scholarly journals the author has a choice as to how they want to copyright their work which comes under the Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (EJCL) this law is put into place to allow the work to be protected under copyright yet be reused for educational purposes only. This policy involves –
The author keeps the copyright.
The copyright notice mentions that classroom use is free, but other uses depend on the permission of the authors themselves.
The journal asks only for a licence to publish the article as the first publisher.
The author is obliged to mention EJCL as a source whenever the author later republishes the article on other platforms. (Hoorn, van der Graaf 2006)


With the examples of Wikipedia and various scholarly journals it can be shown how different the two concepts of creative commons and copyright really are. For things such as scholarly journals and thesis’s it is important to be acknowledged and credited for you hard work and research but also allow others to use this research and benefit from it for educational purposes. In using this as an example shows how copyright is an important factor in the protection of original works. In contrast to this creative commons is also an important aspect of sharing work. The fact that you can choose which level of protection that you want for your work allows the creator to flexibly decide how they would like to share their work or to create information on things such as Wikipedia. In conclusion neither one is more superior than the other yet both are different in their own ways and in regards to what the creator of the work wants their creation to be protected under they have two different forms of protection that they can choose from Creative commons or Copyright.



Reference List
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Creative+Commons
http://clickandcopyright.com/copyright-resources/copyrights-vs-creative-commons
http://graphicdesign.about.com/od/legalglossary/g/copyright.htm
http://corp.kaltura.com/partners/sites/default/files/partner_logos/creative_commons.jpg
http://www.freelegaladvicehelp.com/copyrights/creative-common/Difference-Between-Copyright-And-Creative-Commons.html
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february06/vandergraaf/02vandergraaf.html
http://media.smashingmagazine.com

· Hoorn, Esther. van der Graaf, Maurits 2006, Copyright Issues in Open Access Research Journals The Authors Perspective D-Lib MagazineFebruary 2006, Volume 12 Number 2

Course Evaluation

This is my overall all evalutaion of the course. I found the course in gerneral interesting, I felt that i learnt many things from the course that i had no intention of ever learning about and no prior knowledge on the topics such as, the history of the internet and computers, culture jams and cyber punk. In saying this there were also some aspects of the course that i did not enjoy such as the changing of lecturers and tutors as i find to acheive a positive learning outcome it is essential to have a consistant aspect of teaching. As a student i find that i become used to a certain way that a lecture is given and tutorial is given. By changing these around i found myself having to adjust to other methods of teaching halfway through the semester. An aspect of the tutorials that i did enjoys was the examples given to us, regarding the topic discussed which were somethimes humerous and made the tutorial more exciting such as the utilization of youtube as a learning tool. I do not have any other negative comments on the contnent of the course itself, i found all the topics appropriate to the subject of New Communication Technology.

Culture Jam

For our culture jam assessment, me and my group decided to use the big day out event and create the fake rumor that it is going to be canceled. We created a fake person named Alfred Baxter and made him pose as the creator and organizer of the big day out event, he posted some comments on an official big day out page saying that it was canceled and we got a response from the real creators saying that he was an impostor and a joke.

We made a facebook(http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=100001471098367) and twitter account we also changed the Wikipedia website with information on the big day out and posted on it that the big day out is canceled this year and also made Alfred Baxter as one of the creators of the event. There must have been a big day out official constantly monitoring the page as, as soon as we posted the changes a few minutes later they were changed back to normal and we repeated this process numerous times and our additions to the Wikipedia page were removed again. This is about the only response we got from the official creators and now that the official lineup is out for the big day out and tickets are on sale there is really nothing more that we can do, however we did get some praise from a new face book acquaintance of Alfred Baxtors.

"Zac Carroll Hi Alfred good to meet you.You do a fantastic job of the big day out each year want to thank you for your great work." =)

Week 10 lecture summary - 06/10/10

This week in the lecture we discussed the idea of the environment, the environment of technology that we often take for granted. The lecturer made a good example of saying to us that the environment is invisible to us unless our attention is drawn to it, for example in the lecture room we do not notice the technology around us but there is wireless internet and radio waves surrounding us. Another example used is that a fish in water does not notice its surroundings until it is changed into colored water. This topic was explained to us as many people were questioning why we are learning about certain things in the course. I now understand why it is important to appreciate how the environment evolves over time, this is why we learn about such things as the history of the internet and computers. In another part of the lecture we also discussed politics and the clean feed policy which discusses censorship and privacy. I believe that the clean feed policy is wrong and to me displays ideas to much political control, when the main concept of the internet is to have freedom to put anything you want up and look at anything you want. If the clean feed is pursued we are only taking a step towards being more like communist China.

Week 9, Tutespark

My chosen essay topic for the assessment is - Question 2. Explain what Creative Commons is and, using examples, show how it is different to other forms of copyright.

The way in which i will begin to research this topic is to define what creative commons is, also define copyright and contrast the two. I would show how it is different from other forms of copyright.

There are a few websites that i have browsed that i will look further into -

• http://creativecommons.org.au/
• http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/scw/go/pid/904
• http://copyright-australia.com/?gclid=COvk-7PomaQCFROnbwodQg9AEw
• http://www.whenihavetime.com/a-guide-to-copyright-and-creative-commons/
• http://www.clickandcopyright.com/copyright-resources/copyrights-vs-creative-commons.aspx
  

Week 9 - Lecture Summary

This week is New Communication Technology in the lecture we talked about cyberpunk and William Gibson.

• Cyberpunk is online fiction some of the issues that is discusses are, high technology, questionable morality, hybrid genre. There are many authors of cyberpunk on the internet, the one that was discussed in the lecture is William Gibson.
• William Gibson is American born he received a Bachelor of English. He Has written many cyberpunks including -

  o The Sprawl Trilogy
  

  o The Bridge Trilogy
  

  o The Blue Ant Trilogy
  

• Cyberpunk fictions are very popular in the virtual community and as published novels
  

Week 8

Tutespark and tutetask Week *
Fusion of man and machine
An example of cyber-punk fiction that i found online is entitled 'The Girl who was Plugged in" the plot entails:

The story takes place in a future world, where almost everything is controlled by corporate interests. Corporations control consumers through the celebrities they set up, and product placement. The protagonist, P.Burke is enlisted to become one of these celebrities. P.Burke's consciousness is transferred into a perfect body by a computer. The perfect body, also known as Delphi, is controlled by P.Burke's brain, which is still physically located in her original body. After the transformation, Delphi travels the world using products, promoting them to the masses.

The story is told by someone from the future, speaking to a modern person. The narrator addresses the reader as "zombie" and "dead daddy". The book ends with "better believe it zombie, it's a great future out there". This device is intended to make the reader think about the ways one is controlled by what one buys, and how one views celebrities as role models.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_Who_Was_Plugged_In)

An example of current news story that relates to the topic of Fusion of Man and Machine is a news story by (CNN) -- This talks of how by 2020 exciting advances in bio-interfacing will make it possible for a wider range of diseases to be treated electronically

Fusion of Man and Machine - My cyberpunk fiction.

With the discovery of this new technology that will supposedly make it possible to create cures for many diseases, a new threat is born. With the genetic interference of bio-interfacing in human DNA a new breed will be born. This breed will no longer be the human species, yet a mechanical version of the human race. With the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's a consequence will be that of loss of humanity. The question posed is will the cure of these life threatening diseases be worth the risk of loosing all human aspects of life. A loss of emotion and feeling will result in these bio human breeds. With the development of this technology the risk that is at hand is that the technology will become way to advanced that it could create an immortal human race where the meaning of life itself will become meaningless. The human race will become a body of mindless drones in order to save a few lives we are really compromising the entire human race. What will become of existence when each living individual is no longer an living entity with human feelings and meaning yet a mindeless drone and the world becoming a post-industrial dystopia