Response to Alali Dagogo

In response Alali Dagogo, he states that United States will continue to demote Free Speech every time a threat presents itself. Actually, free speech is vital for a democratic system of government. It also reflects a social commitment to the value of individual freedom and personal autonomy. Furthermore, it is flurrying that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first things to go. He also states that the purpose of agitation is just a method for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrender our First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT. Yes, it is true that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to motivate imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment protects even speech that calls for overrule of the government or lawless action. The government, may, nevertheless enforce reasonable limitations upon the time, place and manner in which speech is practiced in order to preserve public order and the smooth functioning of public organization.

Response to Sims' "Virtual World"

In response to Sims’ post I have to agree with Alali in the fact that the majority of people who spend countless hours creating a new version of themselves would not say that what they are doing is a video game. I think a good deal of these people have problems interacting with people in a face to face setting so they use the avatar and the internet as sort of a barrier to safely do things that they would never do in real life. Referring to Alali’s response again, I think Dateline is a perfect example of this. There have been psychologists on the show who have talked about how certain people, when they talk, blog, or post things online, they suddenly feel this power that they don’t have in real life and will say anything because they don’t fear the repercussions of their actions because of the shield of cyberspace.

Cheating in Virtual Worlds

It seemed like when we discussed the topic of virtual world relations and if they could in fact be considered cheating that the class was pretty evenly divided on both sides of the issue. However, I think that if someone is in a sexual relationship in a virtual world that it is the same as having one in the real world. Sure only the avatars are actually engaging in the elements of a real relationship, even if it is in cyber space, but the people behind them are the ones controlling the avatars. It seems from what we discussed in class that the avatars are meant to be an extension of oneself. The avatars are put in this virtual space that is almost free of limitations so that the person controlling the avatar can live out dreams not thought possible by them in reality. So if a person is engaging in a relationship with someone else in cyberspace they must have some desire to do so in the real world, they just happen to do it virtually. However, the desires are still there and the actions are still carried out by the physical person so I believe it to be cheating. How is engaging in a conversation, sexual or nonsexual, online any different than calling someone on the telephone. I think that a good deal of people would think that a married person having repeated phone sex with someone other than their partner would be considered cheating, and I don’t think that this situation is any different.

Response to Sims Frazier's Virtual World

In his analysis of our class discussion on virtual cheating, Sims expresses the viewpoint that creating an avatar that engages in adulterous behaviors does not necessarily translate to committing adultery in real life. I would love to agree with Sims but from personal experience I’ve found that the type of people who invest large amounts of time in creating virtual avatars and leading second lives are not normal people, to say the least. A disproportionately large number of these people are borderline sociopaths who need to the Internet to socialize. As a result, they create these new and improved versions of themselves online to attract companions. So while your significant other may swear up and down that that virtual kiss with McDreamy8787 meant nothing, chances are he/she is lying. There are thousands of people who “seem normal” who are not normal and use the Internet as a tool to practice their abnormal behaviors. If you don’t believe me, you might want to tune in to “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC’s Dateline.

Freedom of Speech (Provided There Are No Threats)

Anthony Lewis, author of Freedom for the Thought We Hate, makes a judgment that the United States will continue to marginalize free speech every time a threat presents itself. The past examples he uses to support his hypothesis are the Sedition Act of 1786, the Red Scare, and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II. However, he finds the War on Terrorism different from the threats of the past. Since we have no concrete enemy to surrender, they may very well be no decisive end to this war, and therefore there may be no decisive end to the limits put on our First Amendment rights as a result. Like Lewis, I find it disconcerting that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first thing to go. We are a country of fear mongers. I believe the terror alerts at the airport illustrate this point. All this hullaballoo about red, orange, and yellow alerts is just a way for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrendered out First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT Act. The government and citizens refuse to learn from the past, though, as Lewis points out, we do a really good job of apologizing for our trespasses after the fact. Though there is protest, the majority of citizens view allowing the government to reduce their Constitutional protection as their civic duty during these unstable times. However, I believe that now more than ever, we need to fight to preserve our Constitutional rights. After all, how can we claim to be fighting terrorism to promote liberty abroad when we are reducing liberty at home?

Re: Amy's free speech blog

In response to Amy’s piece on freedom of speech, I agree with her points and believe they were thought out very well. As Amy indirectly suggests, people in countries with the right of free speech do not quite give that right the appreciation it deserves. For instance, in some foreign countries people cannot even google certain words because the government literally makes those topics disappear and not even appear when typed into google. This is unfair to those people being subjected to this censorship. People should have the right to learn about anything they want. I understand the motives behind blocking some websites but think that it is corrupt in nature. I just cannot imagine a life where I was told what I could learn about and also limiting the information I was allowed to know. In all, it seems that these limitations do nothing but hinder the capabilities of individuals in society. For our society to grow and become stronger, we must be allowed to learn.

Virtual World

In response to the class dedicated to the discussion of the virtual world and cheating. The idea of whether it is considered cheating to engage in activities in the virtual world is very interesting. It could be claimed that by someone creating an avatar, it is not actually the person behind the computer screen. In a sense, it is just like a video game. I feel like this form of the virtual world, where there are no feelings attached, is not considered cheating. I do not know all about the virtual world but the way I take it is that a character is created and moves around and lives a life like the Sims. I do not think this is cheating because it is exactly like a video game, as long as no feelings are involved. I would not get mad at a girlfriend if she had a character in the Sims that started kissing another character. The line of cheating becomes unclear as the person behind controlling the avatar becomes emotionally attached to the other avatar. This, in my opinion, could be considered cheating because the controller of the avatar clearly wants the person behind the other computer screen for more than what the video game is worth. Also, by someone becoming emotionally attached to the other person, it is basically saying that they want the qualities the other person has. This can be termed as “liking” someone else. By liking someone else, it has changed your way of thinking in your current life.

Blog for Free Speech

Free speech is one of the best ways to speak our ideas about something that is being restricted. It is like standpoints as well as our perspectives about the issues. We have the right to speak our views even though there are a few individuals that would not agree of what I have said. However, those people cannot arrest and stop me of what I have done. In addition, free speech enables us to make an evaluation of those matters. For instance, I can speak my views to the public of what my thoughts about the abuse of children. They (the children) should be protected from being abuse because they just like those who are innocent and immature. They should not have to face this rude expression, which is intended to offend and hurt them. Notwithstanding, there is a few countries that protect the free speech. That means that the public would not be given a chance to speak their opinions, they have to accept and ‘swallow’ the rules even they are not accord with the rules. This should not be applied because there would be a number of populations in that county would suffer and endure of being held by that rules. Free speech gives our right to speak freely about what our viewpoints of those issues, especially in relation of public issues and by doing this, we can come into agreement according to what the major said about those issues. You can say whatever you like, as long as it does not interfere with the government.

Resisting Google

In the transcript form On The Media titled "Resisting Google", Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe reports that Google is becoming more and more like Big Brother and argues that Google is unfairly representing information to the public and deciding (through unknown practices) in what information is ranked. However, I believe that this transcript unfairly argues that Google is violating our individual privacy. First of all, the individuals who use Google are freely choosing to use Google as their search engine. While Google may store my searches in order to alter the advertisement I am shown in my side paneling, I am willing to 'give up' that part of my privacy in order to to achieve superior search results. In addition, it honestly seems as if Google as a corporation is fully fighting to defend the privacy rights of their users. Were Google offering to sell my information at any moment to government databases, I would be genuinely concerned. But heck, Google was not even willing to reveal the search trends and popular search terms of those who regularly viewed child pornography over the internet. If Google is willing to toss the child pornographers a bone, then I am willing to strongly believe that they would have little to no interest in my searches for banana bread recipes, Nashville gas prices, and news articles about my younger brother's high school football team. I am thinking that I am safe (and after reviewing my searches today, fairly boring). Bottom line, if you don't like Google's policy of respecting your privacy while tailoring their products to you, then just don't use it. But honestly, I'm going to stick with what works and be content knowing that everyone at Google knows just how lame my search history is.

Head Space

In the transcript from the interview titled "Head Space", Clive Thompson reveals to Brooke Gladstone the issues with hypersonic sound projections. Hypersonic sound projections are targeted sound waves that are heard directly inside the head of a specified individual, but remain unheard by other surrounding individuals. In the case of this interview, Mr. Thompson is talking about a billboard on Prince Street in New York City where the television station A&E was promoting a new show on the paranormal experience. While in this case the sound being targeted at passerby's is 'just' a loud, disturbing noise, Mr. Thompson is quick to point out many of the issues that would come with increased technology, such as but not limited to hypersonic sound projections, that would essentially destroy the personal privacy that people have to their own thoughts and emotions. One of the more disturbing issues with this new technology is its ability to violate unassuming individuals and have knowledge of whether or not that individual was lying. As the example is given, large quantities of individuals could be analyzed in settings such as airports without their consent or even without notification that they are being subjected to such screening. While we as a society have been raised to believe lying is bad and that we should not partake in such behavior, we still should have the ability (and moral conscience) to control when, where, and to whom we lie to without being outed by airport security. Take for example the question of "Did you pack your own bags?" I assume this is a question that most business men commonly answer 'yes' to without even consciously thinking that it was actually their wives who packed their bags. Perhaps they would experience unknown 'mental anguish' before answering (how the lie is to be detected by infrared beams) and the airport security will potentially assume that each one of these business men is a common terrorist. More questions of how to safeguard our privacy need to be answered before public spaces can be used to infiltrate our head space.

Response to Consumer Panopticon

After I read this blog, it was quite hard for me to believe that the concept of Consumer Panopticon was actually developed for monitoring prisoners as Alali Dagogo said. The concept was to instill in the prisoners of such a building the feeling of being under surveillance 24 hours a day, without necessarily being watched the whole time. This system is more effective because less guard is required to monitor those prisoners. This would make their jobs easier and efficient as there is no need to spend their precious time with supervising those prisoners because they can supervise within long-distance. The same thing goes to Google and Google email because they use this concept to advertise when they want to display something that has been searched by all users. Google would choose the display items based on the search history. Therefore, the item that is going to be display depends to our search history. However, others can easily use our search history in order for bad purposes.

Comments on Intellectual Property.

In response to Sims Frazier’s blog, I definitely agree that the intellectual property is the significant concept in our life nowadays as this is the only concept and way that we have to prevent our ideas from being stealing by others. Is that worth for us to endure the loss of our ideas that we have spent a lot of time thinking about it when someone who is irresponsible take it away without our permission? No, it is absolutely not worth for us to neglect as well as ignore when someone thieve our ideas unlawfully. Therefore, this is the purpose of creating intellectual property rights, to preserve our ideas and also our efforts. Sims also states that it would not be fine with another person simply using him for his thoughts and works. I also support his idea when he said “we measure our success by our growth, without growth, our societies would stand still and not up-to-date.

Comments on Intellectual Property

In response to Dave’s blog, he said that the increase in intellectual property rights somehow can actually halter someone’s creativity. Yes, I agree with this statement because intellectual properties sometimes prevent others to modify and alter others work. In my opinion, there is no wrong to upgrade other works because in doing so, that is the only chance and opportunity that we have to attain our life to better and more comfortable. Therefore, why should we stop our life from being advanced and forward-looking by providing intellectual property rights? In fact, that has been studies that show that people are actually more productive and generative when they receive less protection for their ideas. Therefore, we have to confess and see-eye-to-eye that it is much easier to build off of something that has already started like Dave said. Notwithstanding, there is no person in this world to let their ideas from being stealing unlawfully as they have tried their best effort to create that.

Blog for Privacy

In our previous lesson, we learned copyright which the interests imperiled yet threatened are powerful and well organized compare to privacy, which the interests threatened are disseminate and disorganized. According to one meaning of Brandeis’s slogan, privacy is “the right to be left alone”. Once you got privacy, no one can disturb and distract you unless you allow a limited space in case there is an emergency case likely to occur. For instance, when you are involved in any particular group, your personal information are protected and kept as safe as can be from being known by others. Nowadays, as the digital technologies bombard efficiently, these technologies have changed these protections, from being protected to unprotected. Obviously, there is a negative effect of high-glitter of technology because the expectation of privacy in what is reasonably understood to be ‘private’ spaces remains unchallenged by new technologies. In addition, the new technologies that started to grow in our era are actually for our good purposes, it makes our works less difficult and more efficient. For example, the revolution of the internet makes our life easier as the information can be acquired within our fingertips. The same thing goes to e-mail, V-mail, Voice, Video and so forth. “Privacy here is simply the protection against unreasonable and burdensome intrusions, and this search, the second youth argued, was not as unreasonable and burdensome as to justify the fit of anger.” I believe that it is pretty difficult to admit that the digital surveillance sometimes disrupt our privacies because it is annoying to live a life when privacies no longer being protected and defended.

Blog for Intellectual Property

When property law gives me the exclusive right to use my house, there is a very good reason for it. If you used my house while I did, I would have less to use. When the law gives me an exclusive right to my apple that too makes sense. If you eat my apple, then I cannot. Your use of my property ordinarily interferes with my use of my property. Your consumption reduces mine. (Lessig pg.181). This statement proves that why private laws are compulsory yet mandatory for our good purposes. In reality, private laws produce some collective goods because if it is abusive and hurtful, then there is no reason to produce it. These private laws are primal and cardinal because these private laws give smashing gains to all members of society. Yes, it is true and I agree that even with ordinary property; property rights are never downright and out-and-out because there are a few probabilities that our belongings and properties need to be used for other purposes. For example, your land may be taken for constructing buildings and then you have to willingly give it no matter how worthy the land is. In addition, it is like a forced decision, you have to, even though your properties have specified value to you. However, somehow our properties are required to be protected and defended as these are the priceless belongings that we own throughout our life. We have to protect our properties as we have the rights to do so.

Response to Kelly's Intellectual Property

Kelly’s posting on intellectual property echoes my sentiments exactly. I fully agree with her point that the RIAA’s “war” on peer-to-peer file sharing is futile. Our generation started using computers at an early age, but the following generations are even more adept at computing than we are. At 8, I could barely type. Today’s 8 year-olds are not only typing, but also Facebooking and uploading videos to YouTube. If the RIAA and other organizations formed for the purpose of stopping our generation’s internet piracy failed, they will definitely have a hell of a time attempting to curb the next generation. They need a new approach. Obviously the threat of a lawsuit has not deterred anyone from downloading music and movies and programs illegally. I obtained my copy of Microsoft Office illegally. Hearing about the other people who have been prosecuted for similar activity did not deter me. Furthermore, I don’t even feel guilty. On the contrary, I am proud. Every time, I open Word or Excel, I feel accomplished, like I’m sticking it to the proverbial man.

Response to Sims Frazier's Intellectual Property

In his defense of intellectual property, Sims cites the protection of pharmaceutical companies’ patents. He says that “intellectual property protects people and does no harm to society.” With respect to pharmaceutical companies though, I beg to differ. While I do believe that the scientists that work to create these medicines to cure awful illnesses should be compensated generously, I cannot in good conscience say that the 10 year patent protection protects people and does no harm to society. Not to sound socialist or idealist, but the idea of profiting from sick people is despicable at best and sadistic at worst. In this case, the true victims of intellectual property are not those who came up with the ideas, but those whose need inspired the innovation. I believe that regardless of the existence of patents and copyrights and other similar government issued intellectual property protection, people will continue to innovate. People innovate to improve situations, not necessarily to turn profit.

Consumer Panopticon or Big Brother??

I find it very curious that the concept behind the "Consumer Panopticon" was developed for the purpose of monitoring prisoners. As we discussed in class, Jeremy Bentham believed this system would be more efficient, since it reduced the number of guards needed in a prison. One guard could monitor several prisoners without being seen by the prisoners. As a result, the prisoners were better behaved because they were never sure of who was watching them.

Advertisers want to use the concept of the pan-opticon to monitor consumer activity to better serve them. Google and Google mail already use a variety of this concept in their advertising. They use keywords from your searches and emails to select which ads to display. The panopticon would take this one step further. Rather than looking for keywords in my searches or inbox, it would use my search history to select which types of advertisements to show me. In order to do this well though, someone somewhere would have to be storing information about my Internet activity.

While this is all well and good as far as advertising goes, there are also some major concerns people should keep in mind. The fact that someone somewhere will have access to your internet activity history should raise major privacy concerns. For all we know Google could secretly be a government operation aimed at compiling a database of detailed information about every Internet user. While this idea is far-fetched, I would not rule it out completely. After all we did pass the PATRIOT Act, in which we gave the government permission to invade our privacy for the supposed greater good.

In Defense of Piracy

“But while writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, ‘writers’ with digital technology have not yet earned this right.” In his article, Lessig addresses the over-protective nature of digital technology industries. As an example, he cites the work of the mash-up artist, Girl Talk. I personally am a huge Girl Talk fan. I believe he has amazing talent as a DJ (though he ardently claims not to be a DJ). While his work is inarguably derivative, the resulting whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, Greg Gillis (aka Girl Talk), does not claim to have produced the original songs he combines to make his mash-up hits. If anything, the original artists whose songs he samples should be honored. I believe that “piracy” should be considered legitimate if the so-called pirate successfully builds on the original work, or the pirate has no intentions of generating profit from their version. For example, Girl Talk should be required to acknowledge the original writers of the songs he samples. However, since his creations are obviously original in their own right, he should be in control of his own intellectual property. Those that sample the works of others without the desire to profit, on the other hand, should not be required to acknowledge the original owners at all. The Stephanie Lenzes of the world should be able to freely upload videos of their toddlers dancing to Prince songs without the living in fear of being prosecuted by the record companies’ hyperactive litigation teams.

Response to Sims Frazier's G Phone and Security

In his posting, Sims illustrates how the very advantages of the g phone may lead invasion of privacy. While the concerns Sims raises are very real, I believe that Google can prevent nefarious use of the information they gather. As we have discussed extensively this semester, code is the law as far as computers and the Internet are concerned. And Google’s employees are the best and brightest. If consumers are concerned about privacy invasion posed by their technology, they can write their code in such a way that the information they gather can only be used for the purpose of more efficient advertisement. The real ethical question is whether or not Google should be responsible for putting these roadblocks up in advance of consumer complaints. Since most computer users are not aware of the ethical and privacy issues, I believe that Google and other computer and Internet companies should include protecting the privacy of their users in their realm of corporate responsibility.

Intellectual Property

We’ve debated a lot in class about how the increase in intellectual property rights can actually hamper creativity. The “they say” is undoubtedly saying, no way, people only care about getting credit for what they thought of and couldn’t care less about everyone else trying to steal their idea. But according to Lessig there have been studies that show that people are actually more productive when they receive less protection for their ideas. So since it seems useless to try and debunk the “I say” that has been proven by science, I want to try and construct what I believe is the creators thought process when he decides to accomplish more and put forth more effort with the prospect of receiving less credit and ultimately less compensation for his or her idea. Because lets face it is seems totally contrary to human nature to willingly go along with this. Bill Gates did not start Microsoft with the intentions of creating the blueprints of his software and then just leaving them around for the world to look at, copy, and improve upon. I mean not everyone is UNICEF or another nonprofit, people want something and should receive something in return for their time. So again I come back to the question, then why are people apparently so willing to put forth effort for everyone to get a piece of the ultimate prize. Well, perhaps they are satisfied with receiving credit for the original idea. Or maybe they are so enthralled with the idea and they realize that it will never reach its full potential if they are the only person improving upon the idea. Personally, I think that the only reason that people are more productive with fewer restrictions is that it is much easier to build off of something that has already been started or that you find interesting than it is to start a brand new idea that has never been thought of before. I feel like this method of innovation is responsible for the majority of breakthroughs in society up to this point. Furthermore, I don’t mean just using initial ideas in one field to make an innovation in that same field but in other fields as well. For example, using a mathematical theorem to create a new methodology for writing music. But all of this mixing of ideas leads us to the sticky situation of, if everyone is pouring a little piece of themselves into this original idea, at what point does the improved idea become “our” or society’s idea and not his or her idea? And is this better for society, that not just one person is reaping the benefits of innovation but that society is making this person’s initial innovation better and everyone is receiving some utility from this innovation?

Response: Amy's Intellectual Property

In response to Amy’s piece on intellectual property, she proves a valid point that while copyright laws are completely necessary in order to protect the work of individuals, it is important to make concessions to these laws. For instance, education purposes allow individuals to quote the work of others as long as it is cited correctly giving the author credit. This idea should hold true for only educational purposes in my opinion. If taken into a larger context, I do not think it would be fair for a singer to take lyrics from any other singer’s song and quote them in some fashion. I feel that in this case the singer should have to get written permission from the other singer. In all, I think that the citing example should hold true as long as money is not being made. Most companies would want to infringe on a patent to make money, and for no other reason. Sure, they could say that they wanted to make a particular drug better for the people, but at the end of the day that company is still racking in revenue of some sort.

Response: Kelly's "Intellectual Property"

In response to Kelly’s blog on intellectual property, I second her opinion on the effects of growing technology. Kelly points out that many skeptics believed that advances in technology would steer youth away from innovative thinking. Instead, it has opened an entirely new world to the art of thinking by presenting inventions and creative ideas that are in a sense revolutionary to most of us. From a personal view, when I was younger and used a regular desktop computer, I never thought that one day there would be a computer that you could navigate by touching the screen. Apple is planning on releasing a complete computer that mimics the tasks performed by an iphone but on a larger scale. To think something as advanced as this has been produced in less than 10 years since the age of the normal desktop is amazing. This goes to show that advances in technology do not hinder people’s willingness to think outside the box with creative ideas, instead it shows people what is possible and encourages them to make a good technology even better.

Response: Alali's "Intellectual Property"

In response to Alali’s “Intellectual Property,” I feel that she makes a very good point about the Lessig reading and how it relates to human nature. As Alali points out, people are not willing to take initiative and invent if they have no laws protecting them from outsiders stealing their ideas. It is human nature to feel this way about something that a person created. This idea can be directly related to school life of all students. If I do my homework one night and leave it in a locker and someone steals my homework to copy it and turn it in as their own, it is going to upset me. I left the homework in my locker with the assumption that everyone acts honestly and abides by the rules set in place by the school. However, knowing that this is impossible in today’s world, I need some sort of system that helps protect me from someone stealing my homework. This idea is directly related to inventors in the real world. Inventors need laws that are set in place by the government that will prohibit outsiders from stealing a person’s idea or invention. This is common sense in my opinion, why would someone work for free?

G Phone and Security

As discussed in class, there is yet a new phone that will soon penetrate the market called the g phone. The g phone is attempting to rival the newest technology presented by the iPhone by presenting similar technology but at a much lower cost. The source of this reduced cost is the area of concern for many users. The g phone is able to lower the cost of the phone and the monthly subscriptions by allowing pop-ups while a user collects data from the g phone, and the money these advertisements raise will put a pretty penny in the user’s bank. The issue with allowing pop-ups is the increased security threat. The security threat relates to the idea of “consumer Panopticon.” By allowing outside companies to advertise on individual’s g phone, those companies will essentially be able to track users and collect a database of user preferences and gear the user’s g phone to meet their preferences in terms of advertisement. For example, if I search political parties many times on the g phone, I will eventually start to see pop-ups geared towards politics. In the beginning, this sounds like a good idea because it helps the user. But in a sense it is infringing on the user’s freedom and allows companies to literally follow and track where the user has been on the web. This may seem harmless but in reality this opens a user’s phone to many threats than just being tracked for preferences. For example, a company could potentially use their pop-ups to somehow break into your phone and steal valuable private information. This happened back in the day when China came to a convention in America and so nicely handed out free USB adapters. Some high government employees used these USB adapters and the Chinese had installed a program that was not seen by the user that could literally get into a person’s computer and break through their firewalls. The point to make here is that as technology increasingly becomes more sophisticated, people need to understand their private lives are at risk and they should minimize this risk by using a secure operating system as much as possible. Perhaps the iPhone is a better choice after all.

Lessig and Wood

As discussed in class, the Lessig reading can be closely related to the Wood reading in evaluating the past to the present. The idea from the past and the present that was explored deals with the concept of how individuals and groups kept others from intruding on property or private information. As Wood explains, in the past property was kept individualized by using fences to keep others out of the land. This idea can be related to nowadays where many companies use code and firewalls to keep others away from private information. The fences from the past can be seen as the code of the future. Code is used to make it hard for intruders to get a hold of copyrighted materials. Without this code, which more or less acts as a firewall, outsiders would simply come in and copy an idea and use it as their own. This idea relates to intellectual property rights in that those who have invented something have the right to keep it as their own without having to worry about others stealing the idea of invention. Code is simply a way for those inventors to make sure others are not infringing on their ideas. Companies and inventors have the right to their invention and the benefits that are associated with the invention. Whether these benefits are simply monetary or pride does not matter. In both cases, it is unfair for an outsider to come in and take an idea and reproduce it at a cheaper cost. For example, many drugs when first released could be replicated and produced at a much cheaper cost. But patent laws restrict this from happening to encourage inventors to keep inventing. At first, code is simply a term that many think is associated with computer jargon that allows a program to run. But it also serves as a barrier to outsiders who are trying to reproduce or steal ideas.

Intellectual Property

In response to Lessig's article "In Defense of Piracy" in the WSJ, I completely agree with his call to action to deregulate amateur remix, deregulate 'the copy', simplify, restore efficiency, and decriminalize Gen-X. However, I believe his most important point to be that "new technology is restoring the 'vocal chords' of millions. Although it was once popularly believed that this new technology would squash the creativity of a generation, it has instead inspired a generation to grow on the works of their peers in order to create something that is their own. The traditional mediums for Gen-X to express themselves creatively have gone far beyond anything that our parents generation could have imagined, and at the current pace of technology will have dramatically changed again before the end of the next decade. In order to continue encouraging this new type of creativity to flourish, Gen-X must be decriminalized as quickly as possible and the 'war' on peer-to-peer file sharing must be realized for what it is (a failure). While our generation has been constantly threatened with jail time and large fines for our inability to quit our addiction to instant access to music (i.e. piracy), the worst stories that we know of have happened to 'friends of my friends' second cousin twice removed' - therefore, not very personal. The corporations suing us (largely a group of unemployed minors) are failing to make headway in a battle they started nearly a decade ago. These corporations should realize they are are destroying the creativity of potential artists whom they could sign to corporate labels in hopes of capitalizing on the amateur artists creativity.

Intellectual Property

Lessig makes a very good point in pointing out that intellectual property is "nonrivalrous". Just because I'm singing a song you technically own does not stop you from being able to sing the song in any way. Some may argue that for this very reason, intellectual property should be open for all. However, I believe the fact that intellectual property is "nonrivalrous" is what makes is so difficult to deal with. As a result, it requires a much larger investment of effort. Since I feel nothing when you impinge on my intellectual property, in order to monitor it, I have to invest much more time and effort to detect intellectual trespassers.
Before reading Lessig’s work I never really thought about why intellectual property is protected by the government. Lessig so kindly explains that the government protects intellectual property to encourage more people to innovate. If people did not have the comfort of knowing that their ideas would be protected, they would not invest the time and effort in creating them. With real property, that dilemma does not exist. If I buy a house for example, I see it and I feel and I know that real estate has inherent value. With intellectual property, on the other hand, the government had to help create its value by giving exclusive rights for a certain amount of time to inventors. That was a temporary fix to the “nonrivalrous” dilemma. Then came the Internet. Now, pretty much anyone anywhere can send anything to anyone anywhere with very little effort. As a result, monitoring has become infinitely more difficult and people with ideas feel less and less in control of their intellectual property.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is an important concept that everyone has indirectly thought about at one point in his or her life. From a personal standpoint, I would not be fine with another person or organization simply using me for my thoughts and work and reaping all of the benefits. This personal view can be strengthened on a larger scale by looking at all individuals. As a society, we measure our success by our growth. Without growth, our society stands still. Growth is the most important thing our world needs because our world needs to be able to predict and prevent any sort of bad dilemma that may occur such as global warming. Back to intellectual property, our society cannot grow if individuals are not encouraged to invent things and try to think outside of the box. Intellectual property essentially gives inventors and thinkers a reason to keep inventing because they know that they will be compensated for their efforts in some way. Patents are a form of intellectual property that allows inventors to protect their invention from outsiders. In particular, there are ten-year patents on medications so that those who invent medicines can be compensated financially for the next 10 years without having to worry about a competitor swooping in and producing a cheaper version of the drug. On the whole, intellectual property protects people and does no harm to society. Sure, it could be argued that our society could be more efficient if people could take an invention and reproduce it a lower cost quickly. It comes down to the fact that there will be a few inventions if the inventors are not rewarded for their efforts in some way. 

Intellectual Property

“ There are special laws about the theft of automobiles, planes, and boats. There are no special laws about the theft of skyscrapers. Cars, planes, and boats need protection. Skyscrapers pretty much take care of themselves”(Lessig, 170). Based on the statement, there are a few reasons why these thing need to be protected and defended.
In this global, there are many things that being protected from being thieving unlawfully. This is a must because it is essential to preserve the intellectual property of something that has been created since the development and creation of intellectual property objects is time consuming and high-priced. Even though there are a few individuals feel that trying to preserve intellectual property protection is a fruitless and mistaken effort, they are absolutely wrong by the way they are thinking. This thought is absolutely wrong as well as amiss. Nowadays, these intellectual property objects can be protected and saved under exclusive right, named copyright laws. These laws, with different ways and varieties of method, protect work from being reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. It also gives authors exclusive rights in their works, especially the right to make copies. Notwithstanding, the copyright protection has certain boundaries believed to be in the public concern, one such boundary is like a permit that enables a person to quote a small segment from original documents for effective purpose, mostly for educations and researches, not for making profit. Therefore, copyright law is necessary to enable the owners of the work to control who can make copy and also to share their creativities with others.