Master´s Thesis update

As the months have passed by I´ve been examining the self-direction among this precise web course which is my target. I´ve been creating tables and graphs but also used SPSS to do for example Paired Samples T-Tests.

Now I´ve been writing the theory part and results. Deadline is getting closer and there is still a lot to do but I will get this ready!

Review of "Russia in News" -blog

The first page created nice and calm atmosphere, the appearance was in harmony.

But the first but came quite soon: what is the subject? D-Ladies is the highest heading but I know that it is the name of the group. Next heading which bounces up is General Information. But about what? Based on the front page, I thought the subject is "How smart you are?" since it is the only link which has actual name, others are just some typical links like Articles and History.

Next thing that confuses me is that the left navigation bar contains a bit different links than the table of contents which is placed on the right side of the front page. As I looked closer, it was only a matter of different order, otherwise the links are same. Then there is also Menu at the upper right corner.. It contains only two links, both find on the other navigation elements too. Where to start?

I decided to start on the History-link, I thought it would be about the subject´s history and maybe it would also enlighten what the actual subject is. The last mentioned did get some enlightenment: the subject has something to do with news about Russia. The history-page was about the history of the group work. Since I´m a nitpicker I have to say that the outline of the text was a bit indistinct, some clear paragraphs would have been nice. But I am what I am ;)

Then I continued with the left navigation, since the table of contents seemed to be only on the front page.

Sources-page was nice and clear. Though there was a slight misunderstanding because of language.. With "English news Channels" you think about news channels from England. But in this case it was about news channels in English since the mentioned channels were all from USA (Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today). Russian news channels in English were Itar-Tass, Prime-Tass, RIA Novosti and Russia Today. Estonian online newspapers were Postimees, Eesti Päevaleht, Äripäev, Eesti Ekspress, Õhtuleht and Rahvusringhääling. French-ones were Le Monde and Libération.

The Articles-page was really full of articles! Shame that I understood only those in English. But the categories were well picked and the listing was easy to read. It would have been nice if the news were in time order, then the listing would also have been a time line.

The actual fruit of the work is in the Analysis-page. It was interesting to read that Estonian articles didn´t have analysis on them, they were more like neutral story and the reader gets to decide what is his/hers opinion. Compared to English articles which were more analyzed and gathered a whole from different points of view. One of the group members had lived in the USA for a while and was surprised how much more she got information and Estonian media lost its reliability in her eyes. It was nice that the group also found a possible reason for this style of Estonian media: people are busy and want to read their news as short, compact fact.

While telling about internal things in Russia, it also pointed out that the group had followed the news about Russia for ten days. One of the biggest issues was the Russian presidential term extension in Russian Duma. In Estonian media this was seen a lot. Also English (USA on my opinion..) and French new agencies brought this issue up. The two last mentioned kept the subject in fact of what is happening -level while Estonian media mentioned also who are against the new constitution.

Also United Russia -party got attention in media. English portals mentioned Putin at the same context. Half of the articles were quite identical. Other issues were Russian army reform (it was mentioned in Estonian, Russian and English media), Kasparov (Estonian media doesn´t give that much attention, RIA Novosti and Reuters do), Politkovskaja (a lot of attention all around), Russian economy (gets quite well attention), Ukraine (only Russian media brings it up), Estonian and Russian relationships (Estonian media had several articles about the issue, others didn´t mention Estonia), Georgia (all selected channels talked about it, English media had the most details) and Russia and international relationships.

This last mentioned is a big issue in Russia, there seems to be a lot to say about other countries. Estonian media talks about NATO quite a lot, Russia almost not at all, English some. The new president of USA was a popular subject in every media. Estonian media also brought up Czech’s prime minister thoughts about European Union and the tariff rise of wood. Russian and English media had some articles about the American missiles in Poland. English media brought up also AIDS-issue.

The Interviews-page was about some interviews made to Russians who live in Estonia. The group got two answers which are shown at the blog (anonymous).

Ideas-page was a kind of brainstorm the group had in the beginning of the group work.

The last link of the left navigation is How smart you are? It goes to an almost blank page, is this a promotion of some project? I remember we talked about something like this in one of our Skype-chats (of this course); I managed to forget to answer to the questionnaire.. Maybe I´ll do it now :) EDIT: *buahhahhaa* Seems like I´m not that smart :D
I´m too impatient ;D

All in all, interesting subject! And the analysis-page was really very well done, though the analyzing could have gone more deep. I would very much like to read more this kind of follow ups about news considering a certain country! Good idea to do a study like this.

The blog

Chapter XX: Copying Restrictions

On my opinion copying shouldn´t be allowed without mentioning the source properly. No matter what the thing under copying is. Really, when you think of copying, what actually is the difference between copying a book or a piece of music? Or a painting? Text seems to be so easily copied, music or art enjoy more respect or how to say - copying them usually makes the copier feel at least a bit guilt. Just that an author has most definitely seen a lot of effort in writing the book, and to be able to write a book actually requires some talent too. Of course it is different than more artistic talent needed for making music or to paint. And writing source code, it also requires certain kind of talent.

So, is copying good or bad? As I said above, it is not bad if you respect the actual source. And to be precise, that is only quoting. When thinking of copying a whole product then it gets a bit tricky. Since if thinking of a musician his/hers income comes from the music, is it correct to copy his/hers work without paying? Of course not.

When lining the copying to source code the GNU GPL is just excellent. This kind of voluntary sharing works very nice since everybody knows the situation. And why not in other industries also, it just has to be clearly stated to everybody participating.

Chapter XVIII: Open Access

For example Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) has ruled open access to all research papers which are published under its funding. There is also a time frame: all the papers must be available within six months of first publication. The papers should be put in an open access repository. IRCSET includes this open access to its terms and conditions of offering and providing funding. And it is not a little sum which IRCSET funds: in 2008 it will allocate approximetely 26 million euros.

This choice of the IRCSET lines with international practice which aims to enhance access to publicly-funded research.

Also some Irish universities are providing open access repositories of their own. Even a national open access repository system is developing, it will connect the universities´s and other participating institutions´s repositories.

Open Access Repository system does include the usual copyright and fair practice. And publication on it doesn´t stop from publicating also in a research journal or commercial publication.

What does this gain? As it is said in the source: “The intellectual effectiveness and progress of the widespread research community can be continually enhanced where there is recourse to as wide a range of shared knowledge and findings as possible.” So this kind of Open Access repositories enhance intellectual effectiveness, more people can access the materials and perhaps benefit from it in order to make research of their own.

This is an excellent opportunity to reduce Digital Divide. It makes things available, enables access to those who can´t afford to buy. Maybe this even better ensures the advancement of scientific research and innovation, as also said in the source, with this openness duplication of research effort is deducted.

And to this can also be quoted what Steven Levy has written in his book: "If you don´t have access to the information you need to improve things, how can you fix them?".

Source

After writing this I heard from the news that Life-magazine publish photos for free, it was also something to do with Google. But as you can read from the magazine´s pages, it is free to use their photos. This really is such a nice service! Of course you can copy whatever picture you want from the Internet, but still I feel this is nice, copying is done with permission.

Chapter XVII: GNU GPL

"The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works."

GNU GPL is there to use, change and share. Only thing "restraining" is that the version you make from it has to be free also and that those who receive your version know that it is under the GPL and they can also do some modifications and so on.

Strengths
Freedom; since everybody can have the product and modify it if they want to. Sharing; since that is a way of getting diversity to products and lots of talent fixed to develop things.

Weaknesses
??

Opportunities
As pointed out in the strengths, this kind of sharing and freedom draws certain people who has abilities and expertise; the product will be diverse and continuously developing.

Threats
In a way, certain directions might try to make it hard to distribute the product. And maybe in the future some copyright laws might create some problems, the freedom could get attacked.


GNU GPL

Chapter XV: Different Schools of IP

There are two schools of intellectual property (IP), the Anglo-American and Continental European. What they have in common is their historical origin, copyright stem from feudal law licensing printers to publish books. Censorship and prior restraints were the crux of it. Nowadays publication is legitimate, but information freedom can be seen relatively new concept. When national law systems and legal codifications emerged it meant the end of medieval feudal law and it also points the moment when different national regimes of IP law became more clear and diverge.

One of the commonalities between the two schools is the idea/expression dichotomy: IP protects expressions of ideas, not ideas as such. Both schools also protect inventions (patent), writings (copyright), trademarks, trade secrets, design and models.

But what is the divergence? The Anglo-American school of IP is utilitarian and economic while Continental European focuses to the author´s moral rights, to integrity of the person. Anglo-American contains only limited rights of authors to the integrity of their person as expressed in the work. So there is a common ground but in the Anglo-American school is the economic right of an author highlighted in the expense of their right of personality.

Actually this purely economic perspective has been condemned (also in the US) since it questions freedom of speech. There have been examples of limiting radical satirical critiques of American society. Also state claims hardly at all power over information and enables the private sector to control it. This is not so evident in Europe, there is less contradiction between public and private. The US regime IP is contradictory because it forbids state action which imposes prior restraint on speech and limits restraints on it after publication but at the same time copyright law operates prior restraint on speech.

What is Intellectual Property?

IP Australia: What is Intellectual Property?

Eric Engle: When is Fair Use Fair?

Chapter XIII: Beginning Legal Issues - Starting with IP

Brian Martin starts his third chapter (of Information Liberation) by presenting some basics of copyrights and intellectual property (IP). He describes how the situation is corrupted through government´s power to grant monopolies, how intellectual property has kind of got out of hands with some big owners. He uses a good metaphor to enlighten the IP: shoes. One pair of shoes can be used only by one person at a time. Instead a poem can be copied a thousand times but the creator, the one who has the original, has still the full use of it. Patents exist in order to give the inventor the right to make, use and sell the invention. But there are also some cases where patents have been blocking the improvement, even used to suppress innovation. Martin gives the examples of radio and fluorescent lights, how certain companies collected the patents for years.

One interesting example is how nowadays even biological information can be claimed as IP. As long as some artificial means are used, things from nature can be patented; so some companies have patented genetic codes.. And to go further, for example soybeans have been patented; this has caused inhibition to research (by non-patent holders), and Third World is exploited by transnational corporations. Rich countries could really do as Martin suggests: give the Third World countries permission to provide ideas of rich countries free.

Another problem of IP is that even though the financial returns is said to inspire individual, they are quite seldom benefited; especially in companies since the inventor doesn´t get the patent, it´s the company who gets it. The deeper problem of the IP behind the above mentioned symptoms (privatization of government information, suppression of patents, ownership of genetic information and information not owned by the true creator) is that "Intellectual property is a form of private sovereignty over a primary good -- information." as quoted in Martin´s text.

There are good examples of the problems in Martin´s text, including how a Scottish newspaper went to court to stop an online news service from making a hypertext link to its web site. How crazy is that?

Martin presents also some critique to standard justifications of IP made by Edwin C. Hettinger. The obvious argument is that even if you share intellectual objects you can still use it. And the common justification is that people are entitled to things they have done. But as the text points out: how about the people behind this certain guy/girl? There are always quite a bunch of people supporting the actual work - teachers, parents, other writers/inventors and so on. Every intellectual work is always done based on something that already exists. And why to prevent others from using it? Also the market value of a piece of intellectual work is not a reasonable indicator of the contribution.

Another argument is that people deserve the rights since they have worked to get it done. But what really people deserve? This is tough question even to philosophers. According to the text it´s usually said that the reward should be in balance with the effort, risks and moral. There is just the but of the fact that intellectual work is also about natural talent and luck - people doing things according to their talent or pure luck don´t deserve anything? And on the other side of the coin: being natural talent doesn´t give the rights to own everything in the field of the talent or developing a product doesn´t give the rights to own everything related to that.

Response to third argument - private property stands for privacy and personal autonomy - is that privacy can´t be protected by owning it, you just need to keep it to yourself, not to reveal it, if you want to keep it private.

IP is justified because its needed to promote the creativity, to have more ideas. So IP gives financial help. With this fourth argument Martin and Hettinger see that it is the only one which has some reason. There is still some controversy because in order to promote creation and development of ideas you need more freedom, not restrictions of use. It should also be noted that innovation really is a collective process, best way to support it would be open collaboration or tacit cooperation.

Martin also talks about the marketplace of ideas, which means that ideas compete for acceptance in a market; good ideas will win since people will recognize their value. This of course demands fair competition. The text asks a good question: why would the ideas be owned? And on the other hand, marketplace of ideas is quite vulnerable, it doesn´t work all in all, since some groups just don´t commonly get their viewpoints presented and some directions rule over others. So the biggest reason for the failure is inequality. Economic inequality can´t be solved even with intervene of governments.

And the point of all this is that intellectual products shouldn´t be owned. As isn´t language and almost all scientific research. But what would happen then? Plagiarism is quite feared since copyright law isn´t that good protection against it even now. Royalties are a way to get some more money but hardly no one gets them enough to make living; and to those few could be paid salary, grant or bursary instead. So what would be a good incentive to create? Well, quite many are making their inner real, they don´t do it because of money and fame. Without IP there could be greater equality in economic and politics. Freedom and diversity.

How to get to that point? To start the change in thinking, the term should be changed to monopoly privilege. Doesn´t sound that good anymore does it? After this Martin points out that IP should also be discussed not in terms of property and trade rather than in terms of speech. Things shouldn´t be taken off their context. The frames of a product makes big difference in how to relate to it. Next step would be revealing all the costs around IP. These figures would most likely shock the fountains of it.

Martin also plays with the thought of piracy, if you want to use such a biased term. People already do it everyday, it is so easy. Just that it isn´t that effective as is ever any sort of theft. But a better way is to refuse to cooperate with IP; to boycott for example. Third parties can be won over by this open action, civil disobedience is strong especially when masses are behind the cause. In India it is said to be happening a mass discontent, maybe it would start a snowball effect?

A kind of continuum to this is promoting non-owned information, from which freeware is an excellent example. The Free Software Foundation is really taking this thinking out, as the text quotes: "-- is dedicated to eliminating restrictions on people's right to use, copy, modify and redistribute computer programs". They also highlight the so called copyleft which requires those who pass on a program also to include the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the code.

Also what to do according to Martin is to develop principles to deal with credit for intellectual work, including guidelines how to respect other´s work. In this it is important again to underline the fact that intellectual work can´t be done totally independent, it is always collective. This is why IP can be seen as theft.

Brian Martin: Information Liberation, Chapter 3 "Against Intellectual Property"