Copyright

Works in speech or writing, computer programs, databases, musical and theatrical works, pictorial art, architecture, applied art like all kinds of spiritual creation of a litterary or artistic production, is protected by copyright law. The law gives artists, writers, composers and other creative people the right to control how their litterary or artistic works should be used. Copyright is a sensitive issue in today's society and with the vast flowing amount of information that constantly progress with internet's exponential increasing rate, copyright has become something that is worth re-evaluating.

There are many who believe that the discussion must be about that copyright should allow for new creativity from more people while protecting cultural creators commercial exclusivity. Such a balance may seem like a fantasy, but it should be possible and i believe it's necessary. An overly expansive copyright is in danger of locking up large parts of our heritage when the copyright should be an incentive for creativity, an opportunity for writers, musicians and filmmakers to get paid for their work. Simon Whaley talks in his blog about what copyright actually is and what we can expect from it. He mentions on his blog, "As a copyright holder, you have the right to produce those words how and as you like, and you also have the right to give others the right to use those words". I agree with that but i'd like to ad that this is what copyright should be all about. What it shouldn't do, is to take away the ability to create something just because someone else has touched on that same subject before.

Edutopia also touches ont he subject that what teachers are allowed to show int he classroom for educational purposes are quite strict. "Fair use in the educational setting is defined more broadly but does not encompass all uses". As i mentioned, we are entering an age where information is claimed should be available to everyone at all times and if we want to really stand up to that and make it true, some of the laws needs to be re-evaluated.

The protection brought out by copyright is important and often good. That no one without your permission can sell your book, movie, art or music to make money on it is obvious. But copyright law also implies a cost for the making of new creations. All the works that are created today builds on a common cultural heritage with the same idea that a rock band finds identity in its musical references.

A good example is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which ater a long time have passed on all their competitors in terms of scope and fast updates. Millions have jointly developed an encyclopedia that has become both popular and well used, but that have probably not been without obstacles. Every day, struggling individual wikipedia users are fighting to open our common heritage. For instance we are fighting against museums supported by tax money who keep photo archives that should belong to all of us.

The copyright includes basically a lot of good ideas and features, but back to basics, I think it is a better strategy, for example that it manages the lawmakers maybe initial thoughts about the balance between different interests in society, especially in light of the need for learning and knowledge. Are we talking serious about that we live in a knowledge society, then this should be almost self-evident.

http://simonwhaleytutor.blogspot.com/2010/08/copyright-or-wrong.html

http://www.edutopia.org/copyright

http://www.ehow.com/about_5403872_problems-copyright-internet.html

http://www.odesk.com/blog/2010/02/what-every-freelance-writer-bloggershould-know-about-internet-copyright-and-libel-laws/

Demotivation

I did this one with despair.

Iconic You

You can't really say it's an iconic picture but at least it's me. I just played around here with a few different programs here such as picnik, photoshop and wordfoto. 

Future Wars are Fought on the Net

An attack against Estonia took place at ten o'clock in the evening without bombs, without tanks and without soldiers. Instead an army of computers sent in 2007 was the first wave of electronic "denial of service" attacks against government sites. The Estonian defense minister Jaak Aaviksoo discovered the attacks when he tried to read the news on the country's biggest online newspaper. When he tried to enter, nothing happened, and just like with most of the countries other sites, the newspaper's website was overloaded and had collapsed. In the following days the attacks intensified against the government websites and against banks. Estonia was the victim o a cyberattack. The attack against Estonia in 2007 was the first cyber war but certainly not the last.

In 2008 Israel and Palestine hackers was at war with each other and Russia invaded their neighbor country, Georgia. In 2010 Chinese hackers had hacked Google and gained access to a number of email accounts of human rights activists and journalists. I believe Hillary Clinton said something along the lines that an attack on a nations network is an attack on everyone.

There is no definitions of cyber war and many questions therefore arise; can you compare attack in cyberspace with an attack on the ground and is a war without physical destruction at all a war? Iran and China is blocking public access to the internet for instance. War is not only about wining the battle on the battlefield but also about controlling the information available and people's opinions. In cyberspace we can  see the blocking of websites to keep people in some sort of restrain. It therefore seems important that there is a cyber defense developed since our lives are more and more taking place in cyberspace.  

Google Translate Fail

Just like a lot of poeple out there, I find google translate quite useless. It's good for translating single words sometimes or to get the gist of a sentence or text, but to translate something 100% correct is almost impossible. I started off translating a few words and sentences from Swedish to English that I would imagine to be difficult to translate. Those were words and sentences that you find in all languages but that cannot translate into another. Some languages simply have their own words for things based on what culture and traditions that country has. This culture or tradition might not exist in a another country and is therefore impossible to translate into that other language.

The sentence I have translated here are "denna rätt är lagom kryddad", which kind of means; this dish is well spiced. The word "lagom" is a word that only exist in Swedish. It means something that is in between too much and too little, in other words it's something that is middle-ground. Sweden is the country that is famous for always being in the middle. You should not make more money than anyone else, you should never do better than anyone else, never be louder, funnier etc. And if you are making more money, doing better, being louder, being funnier, God forbid that you let anyone know about it. This is why living there can be quite frustrating. Everyone should be equal and the same to the point where it become ridiculous. In many ways it is similar to Japan. I thought therefore that a sentence containing this word would demonstrate this. The very simple word for dish has also been mistaken with "law".

A classic example of when google translate has been suspectedly used is when going to restaurants, bars and shops here in Japan. Some of the signs that have been put up is hilarious and has clearly not been double checked by anyone.. This is very funny..



   

Spubble

This assignment was pretty fun to do, and also very easy. I used Picnik to upload, crop and put the bubble and text all together.

Question for final

As an addition to my previous blog post, here is a question for the final exam.

Q: What is "Websense" and what does it offer?