Precis # 5

CopyLeft vs CopyRight

 

            Whether it’s the “Left” or the “Right; they both exist for a common good and that is to make the world the better place. It’s not wise to hit our left hand with our right, but join them together and combine the power into one. However it’s easy to be said than done because we all want to win, or right against our opponents. The problems that these two concepts have to face are should there be more regulation or no regulation? It’s the same problem with our economic crisis. The left-wing (democratic) putted too many regulations while the right-wing (Republicans) deregulated it. And look what a big mess we’re in.

 

            Copyright in this case is similar to Democratic. They want to regulate; protect ownership, squelching and discouraging our mind from innovation new ideas. A group of students at Swarthmore College took the demos from Diebold Election System and posted it on their website. The Demos featured Diebold employees’ candid discussion of flaws in the company’s software and warning that the computer network was poorly protected from hackers. Luckily the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) saved them a heart-beat away from being sued. The DMCA is designed to protect copyright material on the web, the act makes it possible for an internet service provider to be liable for the material posted by it user. This helped allow the information to continue stay on their websites. This information is vitally important to the public and it should be bought to light rather than hiding behind a closed-room.

 

            The existence of Internet is a game-changer for copyright because now information floats freely and easier to access. However this is frightening the creators such as: recording, publishing, and movies industries. These people need copyright to protect their career which is a must. However intellectual property is a different issue. CopyLeft exist to better improve the protection of intellectual property because they thinks it belong to everyone once it enter the public. This is considering a free culture movement because it’s nothing more than just ideas. And ideas should be share and improve upon for better outcome. Everyone has ideas and the point is to share it not limiting it by putting copyright on it. The ideas of giving something away mean losing it doesn’t apply here because now with CopyLeft giving away means gaining.

 

            Nothing can be creates from thin-air. Thus we need external information to create something. In short, we need something to create something. If this is the case then how can we own license to anything when creating requires borrow of something? Professor Jonathan Zittrain, Yochai Benker, and other members of intellectual hub of the Copy Left think that ideas should be share once it enters the public which is why they oppose copyright.

 

            Even our founding father Thomas Jefferson thinks that copyright is evil. Our brain exists to think and create. And having copyright is restricting our accessibilities to the information we need to create something better. However lets not pass the line. The exist of Copyright is not pure evil. They’re there to protect people to a large extent. Without them people won’t make movies, write books or creating anything. Many small filming companies had to quit due to illegal copies and bootlegs. How to enhance regulation effectively is the main goal. Put it where it see fit. It’s critical decision, good and evil needs to co-exist to keep things balance because the world is an imperfect place.

 

            I’m a big supporter of Copy Left, however I also support the exit of copyright. They’re equally important just like having both hands. Finding a common ground is what we need not to see how do better than who. A good example of this is our economic crisis. Too much regulation doesn’t work but no regulation at all is a disaster. Same thing can happen to this matter if we shift over to either side.

Precis #4

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Cyberbullying

Bullies have involved and expanded beyond girls picking on boys or vice versa. It has gotten a lot more complicated. This is a mutation that technology unintentionally created because some people used it to attack others and that’s abusing. Teenagers and young adults are common victims of cyberbullying. They used internet every single days of their life, and carry cell phone everywhere they go. In fact if MySpace happens to crash one day some of them could very well commit suicide. Technologies such as: telephone, email, instant message, web page, and PDA can be practice as a tool to bully others people.

This cyberbully is a way of attacking other people by spreading embarrassing rumors on the Internet, forum, TV ads, instant message that allow access to massive public. For instance: Sarah Palin attacked Obama for being “friend” with a terrorist has become a form of cyberbulling because it reached massive public on TV, Newspaper, radio and especially the Internet.

Speaking of the Internet it’s an endless world, and nobody know for sure who’s sitting behind that monitor. The could be friends or foes or a freak that has nothing good to do except missing up other people. Chain mail had became a common practice for cyberbully. Unfortunately it gotten worse to the point of sending out virus in email that could ruined our computers.

A disagreement could lead to bully. Some people still haven’t grow up and become aggressive gotten into an argument with someone in a chatroom, forum or publiccomment like youtube for instance. And those rival could end up throwing serious attack beyond calling names by tracking down their personal information to find something that they could make fun of. Or maybe write a song and broadcast it on youtube repeating calling names over and over for a hundred of times.

The best advice and solution to these problem are be caution, mindful and friendly. There are several ways that we could do to protect ourselves although there’s no safe boundary on the net.

Keep a low profile. Limit the details of our personal information such as interests, habits or employment. This limit our risk of becoming a victim from stalkers. There are predator out there that look at others personal profile and they could live just right next door.

Keep a record of any online activity and place we visit could in handy. This is how we keep our friends close and our enemy even closer. It helps narrow down the people we meet online and places we visited. One day we receive an important email from a weird sender we could get an idea of where it came from.

For serious condition if bully have become problematic than take it to law enforcement. This happen quite often on prank calling. By the time we warn them that we’ll report it to the police then eventually they’ll stop soon before we know it.

Whether it’s cyber world or real world the principle doesn’t change and that is treat everyone with respect because it’s all operate by real people. Some people think that they can get away from doing something bad just by assuming that no one would find out. A couple years a go, I had an argument with someone in a chatroom and that person sent me a virus in email. Of course I know who sent it but the point is it’s not fun doing it. Like the old says, “Great power comes with great responsibilities”. I thank heaven that we have the technologies so we ought to use it wise.

Google a Time Bomb

Precis #2

 

Google Search Engine

 

            Google is the Big Brother when it comes to search Engine. Almost everyone uses it. It’s the most popular Search Engine ever since early 2003, roughly five years ago. Before Google rises to the top, Yahoo was in the lead. Alltheweb, AltaVista and Inktomi were good too but people turn to Yahoo when they needed something. However, Google found its way to the top and managed to stay on top for quite awhile. What is their secret sauce? It’s a mystery just like a restaurant which has this special pasta sauce that attracts everyone in town. Google is that famous restaurant everyone goes to.

 

            There are a lot of pressures that Google have to deal with when there are many competitors. Maintaining is one of the major issues. Early Google was an ads-free search engine which makes no profit. But at some point it has to find a way to make money and putting advertising gave them a huge profit. Users wouldn’t mind a tiny image floating along the right side of the screen. This doesn’t affect their clean interface. There’s nothing wrong with taking credit for what they’re good at.

 

 Unlike Yahoo and Microsoft they’re targeting specific sites that generate income. Which mean most of the time when the users use their engine, the first thing that rank on the result list are online store, or business sites. Google expense their crawl to noncommercial sector such as public site like .org, edu or gov. This is probably why they’re success by broadening their search instead of targeting specific sites.

 

The major major problem with Google is privacy. Ever since 911 the federal government wanted to keep an eye on Google user’s database. Google doesn’t care about our privacy and they would careless of who’s looking at it. In fact, their toolbar is a spyware. They wanted to monitor their users and this is violating our privacy. They record everything they can. Why even bother? The thing that could drive user’s outrage is that Google customizing our result based on our IP number. This means that they’ve filtered our search or at least narrow it to some extend.

 

Another thing that would drive user’s nut is that Google can update their toolbar on our browser whenever they want without asking our permission. Good knows what extra spyware they’ll put in. Whoever has spyware remover try to scan and see. Likely people with Google toolbar will pops up a few spywares and it’s asking to remove it. And if we remove it our browser stop working properly the way it used to because something is missing now.

 

Google cache copy of our site even though things have been updated. Yet they’re showing it to the public. It’s something that the visitors don’t need to see. And frankly webmaster just wanted to show them the updated content not the old one. Google not only monitor what we are doing, they’re keeping a history of what we’re doing.

Violation privacy is a time bomb. They show no sign of loyalty or respect to their users. The data-mining in Washington can’t wait to get their hands on it. It seems as if Google is a watch dog for the government. Or maybe they’re together.

 

The internet is a free place because it doesn’t own by anyone. Not the government not the webmaster or developer, nor even the founder. It’s for everyone. No one has a right to monopolize it and shape it the way they wanted. Frankly Google is doing it and it’s a bad way to start a good relationship in a long run. I like Google. I used their search engine all the time, but I sure don’t want them to spy on me and monitor how many times I went to the bathroom everyday. It is a time bomb! Everyone is relying on it for resource and they should consider how important it is to handle their role. If they want the net to be a better, safer and fun place then I think they should stop undermining what they’re doing.

Precis#2

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Domain Names and Trademarks

Internet has evolved rapidly and instantly became a big market place. One of the many ways people can make profit is by register a domain. This way of making money has became quite complicated, therefore the Network Slutions Inc. and other domain name registars adopted a new dispute policy that incorpates the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) developed by Internet Corporation for Assigned Name and Number (ICANN) came up with a few regulations to prevent it from a disaster.

This law is called Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act to puts things under control. Many people created domain for difference of reasons. Some people created for the purpose of promoting their products online, or to run a business. However there are other people know as “bad faith” create a domain to sell it, lease it, or even to annoy someone that they don’t like. There are four basic guideline that makes people with bad intention or “bad faith” to fall into this category:

1. If a domain name owner has obtained a domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to a party who owns a registered trademark or to a competitor of that trademark owner.
2. Registering a domain name in order to prevent the owner of a registered trademark from protecting that trademark in the form of a domain name.
3. Adopting a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
4. Intentionally attempting to draw visitors to the web site of the domain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the domain and the trademark.

There are several option that you can do if you come across this problem and that is to file a “Claims”. However before you can do that, register a trademark is required. This will prove that the you own that name. Don’t be surprise if you see a domain with your name because even if it’s your name it doesn’t it belongs to you.

Several cases like this happened in the past. Jerry Falwell was one of the victim. Gary Cohn used his name (Jerryfalwell.com) as a domain name just so Cohn can make fun of him. Jerry got furious and went to sue Cohn for violation of trademarks. Violation what? Unfortunately, it wasn’t his to began with unless he had registered. The court dismissed his case because there was no evidence that Cohn was targetting him or did anything unlawful. The ideas that you’re born with a name then that name is belong to you is no longer consider true on the world of network. Maybe this is trivia matter and the court doesn’t want to waste their time on it. Let’s talk about people who has real intention of profiting a domain.

Julia Roberts a famous actress, however your name were being used for a domain “juliaroberts.com”. Now the question comes into play whether the owner is condisder “bad fight” or not. The UDRP followed a few guide line to determine the case such as:

1. whether the domain was identical to that of the actress’s name;
2. whether the actress had a trademark or trademark rights in her name;
3. whether the domain owner had any legitimate rights to the domain name; and
4. whether the use by the domain owner was in bad faith.

Unfortunately her case is somewhat similar to Jerry Falwell because she didn’t registered a trademarks for her name. It’s true that her name is identical with the domain, that part is true. But the rest failed. She doesn’t have a trademarks. It could be a coincidence that the owner picked up the name randomly, and there’s no evidence to tell whether he/she is in “bad faith”. The UDRP has to figure out that whether or not when people hears the name “Julia Roberts” instance log onto juliaroberts.com. But problem is how would they figure it out? Tough luck! Fortunately for her in this case, they found that there was an identification in the minds of the public betwwen the actual name and thep erson of the actress. Thus, they concluded that she possessed “trademark rights” even if no actual registerd mark.

Another similar case is Jimi Hendrix. I’m sure a lot of music fan know who Jimi Hendrix is. Same thing happen, there was a “jimihendrix.com” domain and was registered as a fan club. The domain owner was also the owner of an extensive number of other celebrity and “vanity” domains including “elvispresley.com”, “jethrotull.com” and is offer to sell jimihendrix.com domain for a million dollars. This was the true intention of domain owner. He/she wanted to sell it not a “fan club”. If it was truly a “fan club” then it would’ve become more complicated. UDRP came to a conclusion that it was “bad faith” and thus it asked the owner to transferred the name.

Word of advice, if you think your name is worth anything registered a trademarks for it. Unlike Falwell I wouldn’t be offended if someone used my name as a domain just so they could make fun of it. If you’re a nobody then there’s nothing for you to worry about unless you’re “somebody”. Also have some sportmanship. Don’t register a domain to sell it or to annoyed people. The law has been established and it’s called, “ Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act”. No more of that legal domain transaction. So beware!

Precis #1

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –> <!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Net Neutrality Proposal Revived in Senate

A few senators think that given everyone High-Speed-Internet access without paying extra fees would ensure the fate of internet users. Sure it does! However Internet service provider (ISP) such as AT&T, verizon don’t want to lose this benefit. These ISP company think that they have the right to charge extra for premium placement on their network to recoup vast investments in their infrastructure.

If the Net Neutrality Proposal were to passed then Verizon, AT&T or any internet service provider would have to do extra work to service their users and it’s free. For instance, Verizon would choose to set aside a dedicated pipe for all user-generated video content and it’s free. In other word, this Net’s proposal is asking these ISP to do charity work.

This Net’s proposal bill which is called Internet Freedom Preservation Act, would prohibit network operator from charging extra fee whether you’re a business or home-users. What that means is business has faster internet access compare to home-user, but still paying for the same fees.

The democrats wanted to dip their hands into the way telecommunication do their business. They wanted to shape it in a way so that it would benefit the user greatly. However these so called Internet Freedoom Preservation Act was defeated by the Republican a year ago. However this year the majority tipped slightly over to the democratic side.

It doesn’t seem that Internet service provider (ISP), and telephone industry don’t want to hand their benefits away without a fight. The House of Representatives, Rep. Edward Markey is expected to reintroduce the Net and hoping to win. However since it was defeated, he now needs 60 vote in senate for the filibuster.

Each sides has their own believe system. ISP and telephone industry think it’s bad for them because it would prevent them from customizing their internet service, and that would mean all the telephone industry, including AT&T and Verizon, will be losing advances in home monitoring, greater security of their financial transaction, new entertainment choices and telecommuting opportunities.

The bill will takes away a huge advantage of these Internet Service Provider (ISP) and prevent them from maximizing their service potential.

On the other hand, however, users see things from a different perspective. Ranging from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the Net’s pioneer, would think that any prioritization is threaten the freedoms that internet users have always enjoyed. Technically these two sides have different philosophy. Internet service providers want to profit as much as they can, whereas senator Snowe-Dorgan or the Net’s pioneer would think it should be FREE. They did mounted a grassroots campaigns calling for federal regulations barring such a practice.

What exactly these senates and Net’s pioneers want to do is and I quote, “mark another step toward in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers”. Gatekeepers is refer to the Internet Service Provider, or telephone company that open the gates so we, the users, can access to the internet.

The bill was co-sponsored by six Democrats: Senator Barara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Kerry, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and no Republican except Snowe. April 5, 2006 it was defeated by Republican. However that doesn’t stop democrats from giving it another shot.

Outside Net Neutrality proposes that all broadband companies must offer customers the option of purchasing standalone service. What it does is it’ll merge AT&T and BellSouth together. But AT&T resist the idea and that they have no intention of applying Net Neutrality conditions more broadly.

It is still not sure which side is going to win. History could normally repeats itself once again. Formal Chairman of a House Internet and telecommunications subcommittee said it was not immediately clear when the action would occur. There might be a chance that Democrats would give up at some point.

By all means, the chance of resurrecting this bill is slim because there’s no benefit for the telephone industry, and would reduce their profit greatly. Hence, they’ll put up the fight to the end.