Thoughts on the social impacts of information and communication technology policy.
Colleges and Universities – Institutional Review Boards – Ethics – New York Times
The Times has an interesting article on the IRB process. I had known that it can cause hedaches in the research process, but had no idea they could be so controversial.
(0)Digital Fair Use Bill Introduced In Congress – Post I.T. – A Technology Blog From The Washington Post – washingtonpost.com & Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce the FAIR USE Act of 2007
U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA) and John Doolittle (R-CA) have introduced a bill which is designed to alter the Fair Use landscape under the DMCA. Rep. Boucher summarized:
“The fair use doctrine is threatened today as never before. Historically, the nation’s copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public’s right to fair use.”
However, as any good copyright lawyer will tell you, fair use is a defense to infringement–not a right. Perhaps legislative action such as this could help give the public exactly what it sorely needs: guidelines or boundaries (I’ll still avoid using the word “right” here) for the typical user of a copyrighted work.
Under the “old” media landscape, deep pockets and insurance could withstand the threat of an infringement suit. Now, participatory media have pushed the fair-use-as-defense model to its breaking point. For the typical user of digital media to know what is permissible under the law, there needs to be a better way for users to engage with new media without worrying about being vulnerable to a lawsuit. A change like this may be controversial, but I would argue that it’s far superior to enforce a law by foster public acceptance and legitmacy…as opposed to purely enforcing the limits of the law through DRM.
Here’s a link to the draft text.
People with WiFi spend more time online (Ars Technica)
A recent Pew report finds that home WiFi users surf the Internet more and also differently. This shouldn’t come as a suprise — especially to any self-reflective Internet user who has gone through the broadband to WiFi progression themselves. The report finds that wireless users check e-mail more (72% vs 63%) and news more (46% vs 38%) than typical broadband users.
This scratches the surface of what I have suspected for some time: as your Internet access capability changes, your whole conception of “being online” changes too. To be specific–I would argue that this goes far beyond just being “online more.” Instead, I would argue that the Internet becomes more tightly integrated with countless aspects of life. The ease in which one can search for information on Wikipedia, find a recipe, or now even watch an interesting video transforms the online experience into something far more intimate than a walk to the computer room to check e-mail and news.
Naturally, these are only my own speculations. Hopefully future Pew reports will delve deeper into how individuals experience being online. Perhaps getting beyond type and quantity of use is something that’s ill-fit to survey analysis.
Here’s a link to the full report.
Cyberbullying and schools: where does a principal’s authority end?
Proposed legislation on cyberbullying might do well at addressing free speech concerns as well as educating students in the public application of media law. Regarding the First Amendment:
This is obviously an extreme example of what can happen, but it’s a reminder of why legislation is even possible. Although most speech is protected by the First Amendment, knee-jerk “You can’t regulate free speech!” reactions aren’t helpful in this case, as free speech protections are a complex field of law. Threats, for instance, aren’t protected. The First Amendment Center, which looked into the issue, says that “true threats are not protected by the First Amendment. Students should be aware that threatening comments in general—on the Internet or not—could subject them not only to school discipline but also to criminal punishment.”
However, instad of running to the courts some states are wisely putting discipline in the hands of the school districts–who might be more familiar with the intricacies of a given problem.
So how is Washington [state] handling the issue? State senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles has introduced SB.5288, a bill that would require school districts to create cyberbullying prevention policies. Her legislation does not lay down many rules, instead directing each school district to amend its current anti-bullying policy (all Washington school districts have had such a policy in place since 2002). Cyberbullying would not become a crime, but simply another issue for local school districts to handle.
While there is a possibility that in public schools, this could become state-sponsored speech supression, in most cases I’m sure it’s best to leave it to the locals. Unfortunately, it may not do much to educate children to be responsible Internet citizens.
I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Just Say No | PBS
This article is touting one man’s plan to change the Internet. Technical, social, and political problems aside, the transition plan sounds like the ill-fated “AB Switch” for switching between a broadcast and cable signal (before cable operators were required to carry broadcast signals).
Inet would operate its own DNS system parallel to the one run by ICANN. That’s not really such a big deal, you know. Certainly a different DNS with different rules would not be hard to build from a technical or even a financial standpoint, and it could exist on the current network right alongside the current DNS system. The big question is why people would use it. They wouldn’t at first, because without traffic and participating servers such a DNS would be useless, and that’s why David proposes an Inet DNS filter as a crossover between the old/evil system the new/good one.
A free browser patch would install a virtual switch. Click on the switch, and you route your calls through the Inet DNS Filter, and if appropriate, Inet’s own DNS system.
From the Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (520 U.S. 180) decision:
The second alternative appellants urge is the use of input selector or “A/B” switches, which, in combination with antennas, would permit viewers to switch between cable and broadcast input, allowing cable subscribers to watch broadcast programs not carried on cable. Congress examined the use of A/B switches as an alternative to must carry and concluded it was “not an enduring or feasible method of distribution and . . . not in the public interest.”
While a browser AB Switch wouldn’t suffer from the same kinds of technical problems, attempting to exert greater control over content on the Internet through naming seems a bit far-fetched.
(0)
John is a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin - Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. He studies the social impact of media technology law and policy, with a special emphasis on copyright. He also is an instructional technology consultant for DoIT-Academic Technology.
John doesn't update his blog often, and many of the thoughts are probably half-baked. While the web has sort of an eternal memory, the current and future reader is urged not to take all of this too seriously.
Think of this blog as "John thinking out loud."
(For more on this idea and why I blog, please see this category.)