Late last week there was article on the BBC News website titled Egypt bans (VoIP) services from operators such as Skype. Skype and other operators offering VoIP (voice over internet protocol) services bypass telephone networks in favour of offering free calls via the net. In opposition to free services such as Skype, The National Telecom Regulatory Authority issued a decision to stop VoIP and they officially stopped it on Saturday. This means that as of this past Saturday, Egyptian law states that all international calls must pass through state-owned Egypt Telecom. The article states that Egypt is not the first country to ban such services. Earlier in the month the United Arab Emirates said it would not give VoIP licenses to international companies such as Skype. The article also quotes Skype representatives reaction to laws that ban VoIP services: “In general, we believe it should be up to consumers, not regulatory authorities, to choose the winners and losers in the communications space.”

In relation to class material, this article discusses state and national regulations over the Internet and as well as free services over the Internet. Specifically, this article can be related to the reading Who Controls The Internet, Beyond the Obstinacy or Obsolescence of the State. This article deals with the role of the state (Egyptian Law) and the control they have over the Internet. The information from this article proves that the The Egyptian National Telecom Regulatory had authority over the internet, specifically what services were allowed to bypass their networks. Also study significant is the notion of telecommunications: “Telecommunications, unlike a lighthouse or a road, is not a public good in the classic sense: users can be excluded and charges can be assessed, breaching the major condition for a public good.” In this case the free access of voice over Internet communication is no longer available, thus people will be charged if they breach this law.

Turner, Mark. “Egypt bans VoIP services from operators such as Skype.” Story from BBC News. Published March 24th, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8585998.stm.

Despite warnings from consumer advocates and networks that Canada is not ready for such a change, Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement expressed his desires to push the transition form analog to digital television forwards. This motion means that the switch would occur in August of 2011, and although that is over a year from now, analysts do not believe Canada is ready for the change because a surprisingly large amount of Canadians (approx. 900,000) are still as far behind the curve as to rely on antennas. The CRTC’s solution is to warn those consumers who would need to upgrade their systems through a public awareness campaign. This campaign would merely help to inform, but would not subsidize the change.

In relation to the course, the CRTC’s decision to make a transition from analog to digital television is itself an enclosing mechanism. Cable television programming, which can be ascertained through the use of television antennas, is a commons resource. Making the transition to digital works to exclude members of the Canadian community in that it is a change that requires monetary action on the part of the public. Merely informing the public of the CRTC’s decision to make this transition does not break down the enclosing mechanism, but gives foresight into the problems which lay ahead for those who still rely on analog television and must invest in much more expensive equipment.

680News Staff. “CRTC, Federal Industry Minister wish to prepare Canadians for switch to digital television” 680News. Published April 7, 2010. http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/43007–crtc-federal-industry-minister-wish-to-prepare-canadians-for-switch-to-digital-television

This article provides an update on the censorship issues occurring in Australia whereby the government wants to introduce legislation which would force all ISPs to block a blacklist of websites for all Australians. In this latest instalment of the story, communications minister Stephen Conroy has attacked Google in response to their campaign against the government filtering policy.

Moreover, the Obama administration has raised complaints over the policy.

While Conroy said that Google are only involved because they are only concerned about money, Google has said that “this is a debate about freedom of access to information for all Australians, an issue of national importance.” The U.S. State Department are also advocating for the free flow of information which they see as “vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally.”

Senator Conroy, argues that he is only attempting to apply the same restrictions places on the distribution of books, magazines, DVDs and other content to the internet.

This article is interesting as it relates to the idea of internet governance. To what extent should the government intervene? Conroy’s rebuttal ties in with the idea of whether parallel content across different mediums should have similar restrictions placed on them or whether this issue is more about utilities than goods. Finally it is an issue of free speech and human rights as discussed throughout the course and who has authority over these rights (whether the court or humanity, natural law, positive law etc).

Moses, Asher. “Government goes to war with Google over net censorship”, The Age, March 30, 2010.

This article describes a recent initiative by the FBI, the website BanditTrackerNorthEast, which features images of outstanding robbers so that users can call the FBI to provide information. The site also includes physical information about the suspects – height, race, body type, etc. It was created for free by Spectrum Management, a private technology company. The site focuses on crimes in NY and NJ, but other versions are available for other US cities.

This article raises the question of whether the Internet has expanded or decreased the state’s control over citizens, as discussed by Eriksson et al. in “Who Controls the Internet?” This website encourages citizens to participate in their own protection, but also raises some concerns. For example, what are the privacy implications of posting photos and information about mere suspects, who are supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”? Why is a private company creating websites for free, and how will this impact which cities receive the service? (The first website was in Spectrum Management’s native Dallas, Texas.)

Hughes, C.J. “FBI’s Crime-Fighting Web Site Focuses on Bank Robbers.” N.Y./Region. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

This article focuses on the recent nomination of “the Internet” to win a Nobel Peace prize. It explains the common criticism that most have raised to this nomination: the Internet is a tool, and its effects depend on how it is used. The author notes that the Internet can be used for good – by political dissidents in oppressive countries, or to loan money to entrepreneurs in the developing world – and for bad – to waste time, or publish anti-Semitic literature or child pornography. He notes that we should instead honor those who created the Internet or used it for peaceful ends.

This article echoes the arguments made in Dimaggio et al.’s “Social Implications of the Internet.” In this article, the authors note that the Internet did not live up to the utopian dreams or the dystopian fears that critics expected for it. Instead, its effects on inequality, society, politics, organizations, and culture largely depend on how it is used (which, the authors argue, sociologists should study more closely). Overall, these two articles remind us that our choices matter – that we can create policies that promote peace and prosperity through technology, or their opposite

Kopplin, Jason. “The Internet doesn’t deserve a Peace prize.” Editorial. The UWM Post, 29 Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

The article critiques the collaboration of major companies in an endeavor to shape “meaning-driven brands”. Essentially, companies such as Nike, Best Buy, General Electric, Costco and many more are working together in an initiative, which is coined in the article as “for-profit activism”. The mission of these companies is to provide customers with more, “value-rich, sustainable, and meaningful products, services, and business models”. The way they are achieving this goal is through a new way of doing business –through a gift-economy of knowledge-based commons.

Nike, Creative Commons and Best Buy are working towards “open innovation”. Together, they have formed the “GreenXchange” which is a projects which aims to develop strategies for using patents and know-how to facilitate and promote open innovation; this includes sharing their methods and products that use sustainable materials that will help with environment sustainability. Their platform works like the gift-economy of the scientific commons (Bollier) in that their goal – to create and adopt technologies that have the potential to solve important global or industry-wide sustainability challenges – is one that is shared. It is only through their communal contribution to building knowledge on the matter that new developments of the brand will be made.

Leberecht, Tim. “Meaning-driven brands: A list of visionaries/sensemakers/disruptors/game changers/contrarians” Published March 28, 2010. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13641_3-10471192-44.html

The CRTC made a ruling on Monday that states it will now permit negotiations between broadcasters and TV service providers. This is a first, or a precedent rather, for the industry. The reason for it is that the CRTC feels measures such as this are necessary in order to put an end to the disputes between cable and satellite providers because the dispute was seen as a threat to the integrity of the broadcasting system.  The ruling allows for bargaining amongst cable and satellite providers, meaning that the price of television to consumers would increase due to the increased operating costs.

The CRTC’s decision to permit negotiations amongst broadcasters and TV service providers helps to stabilize a private-broadcast system. The regulations allow popular American programs and sporting events to be blacked out in Canada unless cable and satellite operators can agree on compensation – this speaks to the relevant issue of foreign ownership we have spoken about in class. What is also interesting about the article is that it reveals that the CRTC’s framework set out for their new regime is modeled after the FCC’s. As expressed by Professor Schultz in his lecture, the theme of exchanging ideas between systems is very common in the field of media, furthermore it mirrors that of the gift economy – even though television is obviously a for-profit venture.

Urgeon, Jamiest and Paul Vieira. “CRTC gives local TV edge in fees dispute” Calgary Herald. Published March 23, 2010. http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/CRTC+gives+local+edge+fees+dispute/2715141/story.html

A unique coalition of companies, advocacy groups and non-profits has come together to push Congress to re-write the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act in what is said to be a rare occasion of a “broad consensus that reform is needed” . The 1986 law provides users with more privacy if they store data locally. The Coalition claims that this harms the use of cloud computing and suggest that the ECPA be simplified, require police to use a search warrant to access private communications and push for cell phone privacy. The Justice Department opposes such changes stating, “Americans enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy in their mobile device’s location and that no search warrant should be required to access location logs”. The Coalition has created four principles that would apply only to government access to data stored by Internet and telecommunications companies and private sector and litigants would not be regulated under a new version of the law.

When talking about who controls the Internet governance, the authors discuss the role of the state, private firms and individuals. Salhi states that  “in the United States [President Bill Clinton] believed that the US government should avoid regulating cyberspace activities, and urged the private sector to lead the way” (212), thus relinquishing government power to the private sector. This article is an example of non-state actors, including both the private sector and non-profit groups working together to change the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The Coalition suggests that the old law hampers the use of cloud computing which they claim would benefit users and likely bank accounts, alike. Yet, Declan McCullagh notes that the government and Justice Department take an opposing view, that changes do not need to be made. While Congress has not yet debated the proposed changes, this is an interest case of Internet governance that takes into account different actors with different aims who are all concerned with Internet privacy.

McCullagh, Declan. “Tech coalition pushed rewrite of online privacy law”. CNet News: Politics and Law. 29 March 2010. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001393-38.html?tag=mncol

Eriksson, J. and G. Giacomello, H. Salhi, M.D. Cavelty, et al. (2009). Who Controls the Internet? Beyond the Obstinacy or Obsolescence of the State. International Studies Review, 11, 205-230.

The article titled “Some Yahoo accounts hacked in China, Taiwan”, reported by Reuters, discusses how the Yahoo e-mail accounts of several journalists were compromised earlier this week. This incident is similar to the event earlier this year when human rights activists and journalists with China-related work had their G-mail accounts hacked so that their e-mails would be sent to unfamiliar addresses. Analyst Clayton Moran said unlike the Google incident, which was related to censorship issues, he sees no reason for this attack to be related to matters of privacy – if anything it would be regarding investor enthusiasm for the Chinese Internet market.

This event is related to concepts we have learned in COMS 361 because of the significant connections between the Internet and the market. Yahoo’s value within the Chinese market depends on the strength of the economy, the Internet, and investor interest. Thus, it is an example of how complex infrastructures such as the Internet and market are inextricably related and heavily depend on one another.

Hornby, Lucy, and Alexei Oreskovic. “Some Yahoo Email Accounts Hacked in China, Taiwan” Reuters.com. Reuters Canada, 31 Mar. 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2010. <http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/

This article discusses Microsoft’s latest strategic efforts to achieve dominance in the technological market. Microsoft’s soon-to-be released mobile phone and Windows 7 operating system is the company’s most crucial product in terms of directly competing with mobile phones providers and more importantly Apple in general. With the thought of competition in mind, Microsoft recently stated that they were no longer going to allow Firefox creators Mozilla to create a web browser application for their software unless they agreed to rewrite it in either Silverlight or XLA code.
This imposition of code limits the potentially beneficial development of cross-platform web browsing technology, a system that would allow a more seamless integration of all wifi and mobile products. This can be viewed in terms of what Lessig discussed as a long running trend in the history of Microsoft’s competitive strategy.
Whether Microsoft’s actions are fair depends on perspective. In terms of the economic market, limiting outside contribution to their technology allows Microsoft to have a higher stake in the profits and control of their product. In terms of the software commons, this move limits technological development and favors marketplace monopoly, thus further removing the process of technological creation from the commons-like sensibility from which it was originally created.

Fried, Ina. “Mozilla Halts Work on Microsoft Browser” CNET News. March 25th 2010. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20000979-56.html?tag=mncol

Good luck to everybody who is presenting their paper or project this week!

The new iphone application “Line2” allows customers to not only have their regular phone number and monthly plan but also create a second line (with a different number), enabling a kind of dual-mode phone. This feature allows clients to make and receive calls using either the AT&T airwaves as usual or over the Internet. This news relates to Dimaggio and Hargitta’s article “Social implications of the Internet”; where the authors study the impact of the Internet and how it varies depending on the economic actors, government regulations and how users collectively organize the evolving Internet technologies. This great innovation was created for iphone users so that they could take advantage of an application that enables clients to not only save money but also receive better reception indoors (since Wi-Fi calls are not only more accessible but clearer in contrast to their regular tower signals). All in all, this is great news for consumers but not so much for telecommunication companies such AT&T . The customers have the option of making free or cheap local and long distance calls through the Internet but this will lead to havoc in the future since network providers will inevitably lose profit once this sets off. As David Pogue from The New York Times puts it: this feature “should rattle cell industry executives” since the Internet tends to make things free.

Pogue, David. “IPhone App to Sidestep AT&T”. The New York Times. March 24 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/technology/personaltech/25pogue.html?pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me

In the New York Time, Michael Schuman addresses the Google and China dispute. In mid-January, Google announced it would stop censoring search results on google.cn, having being the victim of a sophisticated cyber attack originating in the PRC. Schuman ponders over the connection, if there is one, between economic progress and human rights. Schuman believes that China should realize the importance of having Google in its economy rather than outside of it as China’s economy shifts from one that makes cheap stuff to one that innovates and invents advanced products and technologies.
This affair relates to Bollier’s argument concerning the Internet as a common. Bollier argues that government investment and the gift economy helped make the Internet the largest, most robust information commons in human history. He contends that now this public vehicle for free speech and social communication stands on the threshold of market enclosure. However, in this case, it is the government that is seeking to compromise the open, end-to-end innovation, not industries. As Schuman notes not only is this type of thinking potential a reason for it to miss out on vital prospects essential for its future in growth, the Chinese government is restricting the public by creating boundaries on what Bollier would call a common: the World Wide Web.

Thanks, Jordana!

Schuman, Michael. “Google and China’s Future.” Http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/03/22/google-and-china%E2%80%99s-future/. 22 Mar. 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2010.

Very recently the CRTC has decided to make cable and satellite companies negotiate a fair market price with private TV broadcasters, in order to pay them for the service they use. Private TV broadcasters want to negotiate a financial value for their over-the-air signals because cable and satellite companies provide these to their customers for free, without compensating conventional television broadcasters.

Cable and Satellite companies are trying to stop this implementation by claiming that the CRTC does not have the jurisdiction to enforce negotiating frameworks between these two parties.

On the conventional TV side, the companies argue that this ruling should be a step forward in demonstrating that their content has a value. The article goes on to explain that with the rise of cable television, profits for companies such as CTV, Global and CBC have been decreasing and they need a more concrete source of revenue. On the other hand the cable television companies have seen significant growth in their profits.

Criticism against this decision from the CRTC has come from cable companies (who claim that CRTC doesn’t have the jurisdiction and that if these additional fees are enforced, they will be passed on to the consumers) and from consumer groups, media union and the creative community.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting argues that this decision is solely based on business and that the fact that tradition TV companies are in risk of losing their place in the market, and therefore withdrawing Canadian content, the CRTC should have a stronger position (in defense of the viewers).

This article relates to issues regarding regulation discussed by Prof. Shultz in his guest lecture. Several issues are included in this decision by the CRTC: notably whether the CRTC has this regulatory power (whether it should or not was discussed by Prof. Shultz) as well as the issue of Canadian content and how much it should be controlled.

CBC Arts. “CRTC Approves Talks on TV Signal Fees.” CBC.ca. CBC, 22 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.

Open Rights Group organized a demonstration outside of England’s parliament against the second reading of the Digital Economy Bill. The demonstration included people with black tape across their mouths to symbolize the bill’s infringement on freedom of speech as well as MPs who feel the bill is being pushed through without proper debate. The Digital Economy Bill will shut off people’s Internet access for repeat infringement of copyright and patent infringement. A member of Open Rights Group commented that it was unfair to remove Internet access when “one person who happens to live there has been accused, without any evidence, of doing something naughty with copyright”. Demonstrators feel that the Internet is valuable as a source of information that can be shared freely to create a better society. They worry that if the bill passes it will “restrict individual rights and freedoms and punish incorrect people by disconnecting them”.

This event is related to the Gabriella Coleman’s article “Code is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise and Protest Among Free and Open Source Software Developers”, as it is an example of a protest against a bill that would harm open sourcing and the Internet as a space of freedom and sharing. Both those present in Coleman’s article, as well as the demonstrators in England use the freedom of speech as a defense against legal attacks of this sort. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to amend copyright bills without democratic debate and remove Internet access without legal process. The Open Rights Group feels this is harming their guarantee to “prior legal process and the right to be heard”, thus positing it as a freedom of speech issue. Further, they feel that the punishment of removing ones access to the Internet is equivalent to taking away their right to free speech.

Raywood, Dan. “Open Right Group demonstrates against the Digital Economy Bill, as parliament confirms date for second reading”. S.C. Magazine. March 25th 2010. http://www.scmagazineuk.com/open-rights-group-demonstrates-against-the-digital-economy-bill-as-parliament-confirms-date-for-second-reading/article/166471/

Google closed its Internet search engine service in China on Monday March 22nd. In THE NEW YORK TIMES, Helft and Barboza explain how this move was set in response to China’s strict censorship policies and the recent intrusion of hackers. The article in THE NEW YORK TIMES explains how Google’s decision has “angered officials in China, setting the stage for a possible escalation of the conflict, which may include blocking the Hong Kong search service in mainland China”(Helft, Barboza). This ongoing debate is an example of Google’s attempt at “un-privatizing” public knowledge, an issue that was extensively studied in Bollier’s Silent Theft and more recently discussed in Lessig’s articles that deal with the advantages and disadvantages of the Internet. In this case, the tables have turned and it is the multibillion corporation that is using Free Speech as their primary reason behind their recent decision. What characterizes this event is the fact that the American company is dealing with foreign officials that maintain a very different approach when it comes down to what does or does not fall under the public domain. Google’s mandate is thus restricted by the traditional and strict self-censorship methods perpetuated by Chinese officials. In the mean time, the illustrious search engine has redirected the traffic to the unfiltered Hong Kong site where netizens can enjoy the freedom of accessing and sharing information.

Reference: Helft Michael and David Barboza.“Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship”. The New York Times. Published March 22nd 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html

In “Do You Want to Pay a ‘National Broadband Fee’?,” Chloe Albanesius discusses the national broadband plan and the effect it could have on public safety. The problem that the plan is trying to address is that of inoperable communications, an issue that has become more relevant since September 11th, 2001. Albanesius states that the new broadband plan would lead to the “creation of a nationwide interoperable public safety wireless broadband networks by 2020.” On September 11th, rescue workers had difficulty communicating with one another because their equipment was not interoperable. Moreover, this plan would require the FCC to free up spectrum so that rescue workers could have access to networks immediately. However, one of the main problems with this plan lies in procuring enough funding. The FCC might abandon the idea of auctioning off the D-block since it had failed to sell in the past; therefore, partnerships with commercial operators are being considered. Funding would most likely come from federal grants, spectrum auctions, private investment, and a broadband fee. There are mixed reviews about charging a broadband fee judging by the readers’ comments at the end of the article.

This article relates to issues surrounding public safety, issues that are reminiscent of the incident discussed in the Democracy Now video. The national broadband plan will not only allow more people to have access to high speed Internet, but this specific objective will allow rescue workers to better assist the public in times of crisis. At the same time, monetary support from the public is required in order for this plan to work. The public must also realize the benefits of this plan even if it never directly affects them: a person in Florida must realize the importance of paying this fee even if the disaster happens somewhere in Nevada.

Albanesius, Chloe. “Do You Want to Pay a ‘National Broadband Fee’?” Pcmag.com. 17 March 2010. Web. 18 March 2010. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361516,00.asp

In the NEW YORK TIMES, Damian Kulash (from OKGO) criticizes the band’s record company’s tight restrictions on musicvideo sharing online (Kulash). EMI disabled the embedding feature of the band’s videos, and consequently views of their most famous video dropped by 90 percent. Kulash and bandmates were distraught by this decision because they viewed their music videos as a creative way to share their music, EMI instead translates the band’s success as an economic opportunity to bring in more revenue. Since the NY time article published in late February OkGo is no longer with EMI records as of yesterday (Keane).

This event relates to the issues covered in Bollier’s book, most specifically concerning the Internet as a type of media commons, where people can be inspired or inspire others to expand their imagination or simply discover new bands such as OkGo. This event is also directly associated with the points brought up by Brett Gaylor in RIP: Remix Manifesto. The band follows Gaylor’s philosophy and recently uploaded the raw footage of the video “WTF”, allowing fans worldwide to “remix” the video and then repost it online for other viewers to enjoy.

Kulash, Damian.“Whose Tube?” New York Times. Published February 20, 2010. Page A17. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/20kulash.html?ref=opinion

Keane, Meghan “OK Go ditches EMI to Make a Real Go of Viral Video” March 10, 2010. http://econsultancy.com/blog/5556-ok-go-ditches-emi-to-make-a-real-go-of-viral-video-2.

A Norwegian court rejected a record industry appeal against telecoms operator Telenor who refused to block access to The Pirate Bay, a fire sharing site founded in 2003 which makes it possible to avoid copyright fees by using peer to peer links offered on the site. Telenor said that they refused to implement censorship and the Oslo court of appeal said that it wasn’t currently possible under Norwegian law for a judge to order an internet service provider to stop traffic to websites from which illegal downloading happens. As a result of the case the Norwegian government announced that it would review its intellectual property law in light of new technologies.

This case relates to the notion of copyright and intellectual property as discussed in the course through Bollier, Murray and Troscow. This is an issue as the files which are being shared are copyrighted in order to protect the intellectual property of those who produced them. Thus it is illegal to share them without paying copyright fees. Furthermore, it is an issue of governance and telecom infrastructure which was brought up earlier in the course when we discussed legislative and judiciary powers.

“Norway court rejects industry bid to block The Pirate Bay,” AFP, February 11, 2010. http://www.news.com.au/technology/norway-court-rejects-industry-bid-to-block-the-pirate-bay/story-e6frfro0-1225829046274

Cell phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have the ability to use Satellite technology to track your location and movements and store them over time. Since cell phones have become popular communication tools, law enforcement officials have been able to access cell phone records in criminal cases, as long as they receive a warrant from a judge. However, a few years ago, a U.S. magistrate in Pennsylvania refused the Justice department access to phone records in a federal drug case citing the absence of proof of probable cause. Now, the Justice Department is challenging this decision before the Third Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The radio show features an interview with Kevin Bankston from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization arguing against the Justice Department.

Simply looking at the name of the organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we can see apparent connections between Bollier’s section on the encroachment of the government and private interests on the frontier commons. Here, the American public’s inalienable (and constitutional) right to privacy is at stake. If the government is allowed to use these tracking records without proof of probable cause, we could find ourselves in a world where the cell phone network becomes a big brother-like surveillance system.

“Tracking Us All”. On the Media. NPR. WNYC, New York NY. 05/03/2010. Podcast. Listen to the streaming episode or see the transcript at: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/03/05/02

This article presents the growing number of innovative internet based companies that are currently congregating in New York City. What is really interesting is their discussion of funding for these groups. In order for these companies to compete with Silicon Valley, large amounts of funding is needed; innovation, and the groups behind it, can only congregate when there is strong backing, incentive, and stability. As presented, these funders are very “incestuous”; this small group essentially decides what projects are worth pursuing.

Luckily, the New York groups, and the projects of their funders, fall somewhere in between creating commons and enclosures. These are private groups that use high end and exclusive investors to fund their development. However, they also use this funding to focus on technology like Skype that can defy set regulations. In essence, they create technology to preserve online commons through private means. By creating innovative programs that circumvent set policy, the growing power and influence of these groups and the technology they produce challenges the established power of Silicon Valley and their monopoly over regulation through technology. The growing power of these groups could normalize projects like Skype, which defy established policy and thought about spectrum.

Wortham, Jenna. “New York Isn’t Silicon Valley. That’s Why They Like It.” The New York Times. 5 Mar. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/technology/07reboot.html?pagewanted=all

This article discusses how twitter is being used in China as a tool to voice dissent and alert other citizens of abuses of power, police corruption, and state-sponsored intimidation.

In this case, the internet is being used as an information commons to bypass state controls on communication. As such, people have created a community where state oppression is being exposed, and through this exposure being challenged.

Furthermore, the Internet is often cited as a medium that facilitates the invasion of privacy, whereas here we see it being used for its features of anonymity and privacy. Though this doesn’t diminish the potential threat to privacy that the Internet poses, it does reflect the power of decentralized information (aided by the E2E structure of the internet, as discussed by Lessig) to give the voiceless access to broadcast dissent. Thus, the lack of ownership, or in the case of China, the difficulty in controlling a structure like the Internet, provides a means for oppositional views to be raised.

Article citation: Anna, Cara. “Chinese Use Twitter to Report Police Intimidation.” Globe and Mail [Toronto] 10 Mar. 2010. 11 Mar. 2010. http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2010/03/01/india-reschedules-3g-auction/

India’s Department of Telecommunications announced a date (April 9th) for the auction of 3G spectrum, to be used by private wireless operators. India’s state-owned mobile operators, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., have held 3G licenses since early 2009.

The Indian DoT’s auction of the 3G spectrum is the kind of change Ronald Coase championed in the mid-1940s; the creation of a market for spectrum. However, the Indian 3G auction perpetuates the presumption that spectrum must be controlled in the first place, and that spectrum has “fixed natural limitations” (U.S. Supreme Court 1946, in Lessig, 75).

Zacks Investment Research. (March 1, 2010) India Reschedules 3G Auction. Daily Markets. Retrieved from http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2010/03/01/india-reschedules-3g-auction/

These are the links to the websites guest lecturer Arne Hintz mentioned today in his presentation

http://www.schnews.org.uk/index.php

http://www.deepdishtv.org/Home/

http://oneworld.net/

http://www.indymedia.org/en/

http://www.cmaq.net/en/

http://riseup.net/

http://ipsnews.net/

http://www.ncra.ca/

http://www.cmfe.eu/

http://www.ourmedianetwork.org/

http://www.amarc.org/

In class today, Professor Lentz recommended that students go see Adam Lauder, the Communication Studies liaison librarian at McLennan. Liaison librarians can answer any of your research questions, help you find some information on your topic, or show you how to search for articles on various databases. Full disclosure: I work at the library, so I am admittedly biased, but I would highly recommend that you go see Adam if you’re stuck with your research. The library offers many great resources and services, and Adam might be able to help you find what you’re looking for.

Some links to communications-related resources, as well as Adam Lauder’s contact information, are available here on the McGill Library website.

If you are working on a group project, you may also want to consider booking a study room or Cybertheque pod at the library.

The article discusses how Superbowl ads are given even more exposure as facebook and twitter highlight the most popular ads. The Superbowl is the most watched tv program in history therefore advertising during the Superbowl is extremely expensive and only the most profitable corporations are able to do this. The article discusses celebrities such as Megax Fox and corporations such as Coke benefiting from advertising during the Superbowl and the aftermath of online airtime they consequently receive via Facebook, Twitter and other online sites.

Chapter 10 of Bollier discusses the commercialization of culture and public spaces. They use sports as an example of something that used to be seen as part of the oublic domain but over time has become privatized. From the overwhelming amount of Budweiser and Google commercials after every play, to the plastered stadium of Coca Cola and Viagra, it becomes apparent that the Superbowl is the perfect example of the commercialization of public spaces. The article goes a step further to demonstrate how with the rise of the Internet, the Superbowl and its advertising is taken to another extreme with even more commercialization of culture.

Thanks, Mara!

It’s a prime example of a website that is technically illegal but relies on the rules of fair use. Almost everything on the website does not “belong” to the website, they don’t require donations (like Wikipedia); it’s a complete gift economy, and also a really cool website to watch/listen/ avant garde art.

Thanks for sharing, Bianca!

This is a story from the Washington Post about how the NSA (the National Security Agency) and Google are forming an alliance to protect google’s networks (gmail, search) from cyber-terrorism. The NSA is the “world’s most powerful surveillance organization”, and google hopes to use their resources to fight hackers, a threat which has been made immediate by the attacks from Chinese hackers on the gmail accounts of human rights activists.

This largely relates to the material covered in chapter 8 of Bollier in the section dealing with the internationalization of the Internet, and the issues arising as individual nations are trying to reconcile issues around the autonomy of national policies in regards to the Internet. This news story is also important because it puts into question the privacy of those who use gmail and other google applications, and whether this information will be shared with the NSA and used for other purposes.

In the second, Men at Work ripped off Kookaburra according to federal judge:

This story is about how the Australian band, Men at Work, just lost a court battle over the rights of their hit from the 1980s, “Down Under”, a song largely about what it means to be Australian. The judge ruled that the flute riff in the song was “stolen” from an Australian folk song, Kookaburra, written more than 75 years ago. The band and the owner of the song, EMI, have to pay up to 60% of the earnings they made from the song.

This issue is pertinent to the content of our class, because it focuses on the rights of the individual author, rather than emphasizing that this folk song was part of Australia’s cultural heritage, and that Men at Work were using public resources from the commons to express their own interpretation of Australian identity and culture. This is particularly interesting, as the lawyer for the winning publishing company, Larrikin Music, called the case “a big win for the underdog”, which, in the context of this course, is definitely debatable.

http://www.opensourcecinema.org/

The federal government (Prime Minister) and Penang state (Chief Minister) of Malaysia is claiming copyright infringement by Apple over the use of a state idea, and piracy of state culture: One Malaysia/ Middle Malaysia. Through administrative law the state seeks to protect the nation’s shared heritage. These state slogans are about unifying the nation, creating a culture of collective identity, whilst allowing separate communities to exist. The nation suggests: “iPad, due to its position as a product in between the iPhone and the MacBook, is mimicking the One Malaysia… concepts”. The case is being tried in Delaware.

Copyrights state that no one can own an idea, but someone can own an expression of an idea; yet, it isn’t easy to tell when ideas that are shared can become individual property. The lawsuit being filed questions Malaysia’s ownership of an idea, as expressed in a slogan versus Apple’s more tangible form of this idea – creating a technological unity between Apple’s products. Copyright’s purpose is to facilitate the free flow of information for public benefit, thus Malaysia contends it is defending its public and the cultural bargain. However, this creates tension with the definition of free society: a society with an intellectual commons that no country controls. Would this provide the nation with unfair control of the commons? Or is it a means to safeguard the commons? (Bollier, Ch Eight)

Thanks, Alison!

In chapter eight of Silent Theft, Bollier tackles the issue of copyrights and patents. For the purpose of writing this chapter, he used American lawyer Lawrence Lessig’s works as a key ressource.  Lessig in one of the premier specialist of copyright law, and actively advocates on behalf of what he calls the ” Creative Commons ” . He notoriously served as lead counsel in the Eldred vs Ashcroft case.

Here’s the link to his personnal web page, which boasts plenty of content related to the aforementioned issues:

http://www.lessig.org/

This weekend I was sent a link to an article in Guardian briefly summarizing the climate in Vancouver leading up to the Olympic games. Besides describing the increasingly authoritarian atmosphere, the article describes how “Vancouver’s Olympic committee has also assumed the role of logo police.” A consequence of this sees public institutions, such as libraries, being forced to cater to the demands of corporate sponsors channeled through VANOC. For example, any public speakers must dress in corporate approved attire; public events must only serve corporate sponsor’s food, and so on.

This hearkens to our class discussions on the enclosure of public space. The public libraries of Vancouver are run by the municipality, and serve to make information available to public. The Olympics are heavily subsidized by private corporations which stipulate conditions for their support to VANOC. VANOC, in turn, is responsible with coordinating the logistics of the Olympics, and in doing so acts as the intermediary between the government and private interests. Yet, as this article illustrates, it appears as though VANOC is making demands on behalf of their corporate donors that amount to the privatization of public space.

This raises the question of how much the public owes the corporations for their “generous” donation? Is the philanthropic spirit of these donations undermined by the aggressive branding of public space?

Thanks, Assaf!

Signal FM – indeed a privately-owned Haitian radio station – has been acting as a nodal point for loved ones to reconnect and to get information out about/to relief efforts. Their tower stayed up during the quake, and they have been powering it with generators. I feel this is a good example of a commons, even a gift-economy where information is being shared in a very meaningful way.

Dan Wooley, an aid worker who was trapped in the quake, was able to use his iPhone to get first aid and CPR information. What strikes me most, though, is the tone of this article, which reads like ad copy for apple. This story highlights the economic factors that create a certain inflection in news stories, and as Prof. Lentz pointed out, that privilege certain actors over others vis-a-vis coverage.

Today I brought up this article about Bill Gates commenting on whether Google is a monopolist, as many parallels have been drawn between both Google and Microsoft. Google’s stake in the search business is large 66% in comparison to Microsoft’s 11%). Gates had actually stopped by the NY Times to talk about heading the Gates Foundation, which in many ways relates to what the movie the Corporation brought up. CEOS of major corporations can be extremely nice and charitable as human beings but at the end of the day what shareholders of a company expect is monetary results.

He also talked about Google’s threat to stop search business with China if they don’t change their policies, which related to the first current events topic that was brought up January 14th. Gates said he was unimpressed by Google’s “threat” as they had yet to actually do anything. Gates said that while Google, or any other person may not agree with China’s policies, almost every country in the world will have some kind of controversial policy, including the US.

“What is the point they are making?” (Gates) One thing to consider (brought up by Prof. Lentz) is why Google seems so unnerved by the thought of losing such a large chunk of business by cutting out China, or do they really believe that China won’t call their bluff?

These two articles explain how General Mills is responsible for using palm oil in a non-eco-friendly way. Local protesters resent this corporations lack of respect for nature, more specifically a resource. General Mills is a corporation just as we have learnt about in the documentary “the Corporation”. Palm oil is a resource that is being depleted.

In the Bollier chapters, we are introduced to the concept of nature within the context of the economy and capitalism Nature is an interesting concept because as explained in the chapters it is hard to define who owns nature and consequently how it should be regulated. One of the biggest obstacles with nature and regulation arises when large corporations, such as General Mills, deplete a resource or damage the environment. Corporations are not local communities who work together collaboratively as seen in Chapter 1 with the community gardens in New York City. Consequently when corporations are forced to act for their shareholders interest to solely maximize profit, they are often not nature or environmentally friendly or careful. This was seen in the film we watched, “The Corporation”. Therefore, with the rise of capitalism and large scale global corporations, nature and environmental degradation are new concerns that emerge.

Thank you, Mara!

President Obama’s first State of the Union Address discussed many different subjects affecting the Americans of today and the future: health care, the role of (mostly financial) corporations, education, the country’s debt, and national security. In particular, he talked about the role of government in regulating and financially backing many of these issues, advocating for a larger governmental role.

In all of these areas President Obama expressed the need for everyone- government, corporations, and the media, – to work towards “common goals” and “American values”. This is not only to restore the faith of the American people, but also to provide greater access to goods which some see as human rights. While the state of health care and education are far from becoming a gift economy in the United States, Obama’s call for companies and government to work for the good of the people and not profit is a step in that direction.

The full text of the address is available here, courtesy of the New York Times. Thank you, Sam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09nwr01UPXQ&feature=fvw

If you’re interested in Hardin’s thinking, you can also check that other video ( the “Tragedy of the Commons” bit starts at 2:24 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8yOamWq3a0&feature=related

Here’s the link for the Global Voices website, which provides an alternative look at media issues and policies throughout the world. It’s very well-built, as the content is organized under tabs corresponding to each of the major geographical area ( Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia… ). Very useful to those looking for current events to profile.

http://globalvoicesonline.org/

This article examines how AT&T’s fourth Quarter earnings are up by 26 percent and how this profit is related to wireless technologies. Specifically, AT&T’s corporate relationship with Apple Inc. has granted the telecommunications corporation exclusive rights to sell and activate the Apple iPhone in the United States. The two corporations are also working on a data deal for the brand new Apple iPad. Also, the article mentions how multiple wireless services – such as e-readers and netbooks – are fortifying corporate profits like never before.

Essentially, AT&T has been granted a monopoly on a sector of the telecommunications and media commons. Looking at the corporate relationship between AT&T and Apple Inc., one can assume that this enclosure will encompass more and more of the telecommunications and media commons through the elite ownership of the rights to sell and distribute certain telecommunications technologies (looking specifically at their data deal regarding the iPad, etc.).

Thanks Rachel!

On January 27, the SEC issued “interpretive guidance” that encourages public companies to inform their investors about how climate change may affect their business (e.g., through anticipated lawsuits, government regulations on business activity, or even profitable opportunities like new energy sources). This “interpretive guidance” helps companies understand when certain climate-change-related issues fall under the SEC’s already-existing requirements for what must be disclosed to investors.

This relates to Bollier’s analysis of public natural resources because the SEC is recognizing the role that nature plays in helping businesses earn profits (and, conversely, how harms to nature can hurt such profits). It also reflects the market’s focus on economic values: investors must be informed about how climate change affects a company, not vice versa. But the SEC ruling may create more public consciousness about the relationship between the market and the natural environment.

Thank you, Kira!

The US Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot regulate political speech for corporations and unions. Because corporations are considered to be ‘a person’, it is argued that the first amendment affords them the right to express their political beliefs without discrimination. The now legal monetary donations from corporations will seriously impact the structure of electoral politics as we know it.

The second article asks How Fast Is Your Web Connection?:

This article discusses ways of testing the speed of your web connection. I.S.P.’s offer ways to test it, but the results may be skewed. Some websites created ways to test the speed of your internet yourself as part of an online gift economy and community.

Thanks for your contribution, Sam!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/enron/

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87

The CBC has reported that Canwest, the Canadian corporate communication giant, is in the process of seeking buyers to purchase several of its many local newspapers. Given the decades long trend of media concentration, this meltdown may present an opportunity for local media to report content that may have previously been vetoed by the Aspers. Also, it will be interesting to see if the new ownership will be local or whether the newspapers will simply shift to another corporate owner.

Thank you, Assaf!

The article accompanying the video is pretty broad-based, similar to the discussion we had in class on Thursday about how sites like Twitter, Facebook and Google were joining the relief effort. What I found more interesting were the sections in the video interview where Andrew Sukawaty, CEO of Inmarsat, explains some of the technical details. Clearly, government logistics could one day find themselves at the ‘mercy’ of corporate institutions like Inmarsat. -What would happen if an analyst at Inmarsat used a formula to prove that reallocation of satellite resources was not cost-effective? Theoretically, there is a price-point where governments cannot expect this kind of ‘good corporate citizenship’.

It was also fascinating to be informed that thousands of terminals were able to operate through the diverted satellites. So, what are the reasons why this action might be considered cost-effective by Inmarsat? Their relations with news agencies, aid agencies, NGOs and governments might be strengthened, and of course they get that free BBC publicity. Will these factors always win out against the number-crunchers?

Thanks Grant!