I've finally got around to watching the Buffy vs Edward Remix that half the Internet seems to have linked to. I found the last few seconds the most interesting, because it states that "This is a transformative work and constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law." The combination of movie industry demands that such remixes be taken off YouTube and other sites, combined with increasing activism around copyright, seems to be having an effect.
Copyfight activists are making a valuable political contribution by arguing that the creations of amateurs are worth protecting. While much of the illegal copying going on around the place happens purely for viewing purposes, successfully cracking down on 'piracy' by introducing copy-protection technology would make it impossible to produce remixes like this one. Admittedly, the idea of copy-protection technology even being 100% effective is laughable...but why should only those with technical skills be able to produce remixes like this? The harder we make it, the fewer people can do it.
I love the thought of living in a world where my teenage cousins could produce remixes that take the pop culture that surrounds them and mash it up to reimagine and critique it. Sure, plenty of people have written blog posts and articles that critique Twilight's gender relations...but the impact and accessibility of a critique that repositions the material itself is something else. I want people to be able to be able to take images, news footage, movie clips, music, and remix them into anarcha-feminist critiques of the anarchist movement, critiques of the racism in 300 (warning: swears!) and Disney movies, even fan-edits.
There are also some remixes that look at copyright and fair use, including A Fair(y) Use Tale and Keir Smith's oh so criminal, meant to stimulate thought about Australia's copyright system. Australia currently has no fair use provision, although we do have something similar, "fair dealing" (more here). As far as I can tell, since 2006 it has been illegal for Australians to circumvent copy-protection technology, and it doesn't seem that there is a provision to waive this for fair dealing.
So if you break the copy-protection on your Buffy DVD to remix it, it's illegal. But please don't stop!
----
Image courtesy of Tama Leaver.
I've just posted about the Iran elections over at the Bluestocking Blog. I also came across a few stories yesterday about new developments in Australia's crazy 'net censorship, including news that the blacklist now includes several sites from Wikileaks, and that ACMA will fine people who link to sites on its (secret) blacklist.
As I've said before, the whole Clean Feed is a terrible idea, and students, researchers, and academics should be particularly concerned about it. If you don't know about it already, there are plenty of ways to get informed and get active.
I've been using Zotero a lot over the last few months as I tidy up my chapters and start putting together a bibliography, so I'm pleased to see a couple of positive developments in the project. Firstly, the lawsuit brought against Zotero by Thomson Reuters has been dismissed. Secondly, Zotero 2.0 is now is beta stage, and I finally got the chance to install it and have a bit of a look around. I'm quite taken with the ability to automatically back up your library onto their server, and to synchronise your library across more than one computer. I also like the new networking functions, like the ability to join groups and make your library public.
As usual, I've leapt first and will gradually work out how to use all of these new tools. My zotero page is up, and I've made my library public to begin with. There's an option for making it private, but I can't think of any reason to. For a while now I've been daydreaming about bibliographic software that will tell you about overlaps with other people's libraries (like my librarything does). Doing research there's always that looming fear in the back of your mind that someone out there is doing the exact same work as you, so anything that helps me feel more connected and up-to-date with research in my field is very welcome.
For those of you out there still using Endnote, or trying to decide which bibliographic software to use - take a look at Zotero. It's shiny!
------
Picture courtesy of karindalziel.
Like most academics and over-consumers of the written word, I have had difficulty loosening my attachment to the idea that words printed on paper are somehow more worthy than words that exist solely online. When it comes to journal articles, and even magazine and newspaper articles, I find it easier to trust online sources when I know that they are printed somewhere. Even if I'll never see the 'real', printed, crinkle-in-your-hands, copy, I find it reassuring to know that it exists and the copy I'm reading from my computer screen is linked to that copy.
Happily, I am slowly learning to give up the safety blanket of the printed word. In part, this is because I keep stumbling across articles that come from peer-reviewed journals that only exist online, and I've found many of them to be very useful. Here are three of my current favourites:
First Monday: started in 1996, this journal is devoted to the Internet. Recent issues have included articles on storytelling in new media, the relationship between use of facebook and academic performance, and navigating the blogosphere with genre-based typologies.
Surveillance & Society: I've just been editing my third chapter, which discusses attempts by elites to (re)gain control of information technologies and online spaces, and this journal has been a valuable source. The last issue was particularly useful, as it looked at 'Surveillance and Resistance'.
Interface: a journal for and about social movements.The first issue, out in January, was a promising start, with interesting articles from around the world. I like journals that bring together academics and practitioners (and so many of us from the fuzzy divide inbetween), and I'm looking forward to the next issue.
And, finally, on a barely-related note: I rather enjoyed Helen DeWitt's post on practical ethics and the triangulation of desire. It discusses, among other things, vegetarianism, and the vexing question of why people don't do what's right even in the face of convincing arguments.
--------
Photo courtesy of Okinawa Soba.
I've just finished the hopefully-close-to-final edits on my second chapter, which is a discussion of the Indian movement against genetically modified (GM) crops. Having just reread it more times than I feel is really healthy, I can tell you that it discusses an awful lot. It addresses the history of farmers' movement in India, the use of Gandhian frames in the movement, ecofeminism, the piracy of Bt cotton...
What I don't do at any point in the chapter is to actually take a stance on GM crops. In part, this is because it is not necessary. The chapter is meant to discuss the movement itself, how it works and how it contributes to global debates. It's not necessary to address the risks or benefits of GM crops in order to do so.
On the other hand, I'm arguing throughout the thesis that there is an urgent need for the movement(s) for globalisation-from-below. The importance of projects that aim to build a more sustainable, peaceful, and just form of globalisation has been highlighted by the recent global financial crisis and the ongoing threat of climate change. Given this, it seems like it would be useful to make some assessment of whether GM crops (and therefore movements against them) are likely to make the world better or worse.
So, after four (and a bit) years of grappling with the issue, after fieldwork and reading thick tomes and arguing with scientists in pubs, here's my evaluation:
a) I don't know, but
b) it seems like something of a waste of resources.
Why don't I know?
Firstly, this is because "GM crops" have few characteristics in common, apart from the process used to produce them. Even the evaluation of Bt cotton, which has been a flashpoint of debate in India, is complicated because the presence of the Bt toxin is only one characteristic. Bt cotton varieties have in common an additional resistance to bollworm, but they may need more or less water, may produce different boll sizes, may be more or less susceptible to heat, depending on the variety of cotton modified to contain the Bt gene. Trying to evaluate all GM crops ever, and all GM crops possible, seems... tough.
Secondly, many of the critiques of GM crops rest on the fact that the current wave of biotechnology research has been dominated by the private sector. This means that research has been skewed towards crops likely to be profitable, as in the case of Bt cotton. However, public sector research in biotechnology is starting to pick up, especially in China, which may mean a shift towards research focused on the needs of subsistence farmers. It may also mean a shift away from the commercialisation and patenting of biotechnology research.
Thirdly, the jury seems to be out on potential risks of GM crops. As noted in the first point, GM crops are varied. There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why the process of genetic modification should lead to toxic or otherwise dangerous crops. On the other hand, there is research that seems to show harmful effects in some people from some crops. In other words, no-one really knows. The process of genetic modification may be perfectly safe, the outcomes may not be.
Why it may well be a waste of time
Firstly, the costs of research and development for GM crops are higher, at the moment, than costs for conventional plant breeding. Given the wide range of food crop varieties, it seems more sensible to invest in preserving and experimenting with existing agricultural biodiversity.
Secondly, and on a related note, it seems that much of what people are trying to achieve through genetic modified crops could be achieved just as well by using existing agricultural varieties or techniques. Rather than trying to produce 'nutritionally enhanced' crop varieties, for example, it might be possible to guarantee food security by providing support for mixed-crop agriculture.
Thirdly, gains from GM crops might end up being short-term and reproduce the problems they were meant to solve. For example, Bt cotton kills bollworm, but insects can develop resistance rapidly - as the most susceptible insects die, succeeding generations are those that are most resistant. One way to avoid this is through the use of 'insect refuges', areas of non-Bt cotton that preserve a population of non-resistant insects. However, for many small farmers, this is not an attractive or realistic option.
This is a very brief run-down of the issues and there are plenty of aspects of the debate that I've skimmed over or haven't included. However, I do think it's important to note that not everyone would agree that this kind of cost-benefit calculation of the benefits and risks is appropriate when it comes to genetic modification. For many people it doesn't matter what kind of outcome genetic modification might bring, it's simply wrong to meddle with the sanctity of life by changing DNA as if it was software. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this argument, but it's worth considering it.
---------
Picture courtesy of nnic.
Sorry for the pun. It's hard to resist.
Anyway, I now have a twitter feed. Much like this blog, I expect it will take me a while to work out exactly what it's for. I'm thinking of trying to tie it into my research somehow, but I'm still not sure what form that will take.
I've recently finished the edits for my first chapter, which includes a reasonable large section on knowledge and power. I have also recently had a number of deeply frustrating debates about 'science' with friends and acquaintances. (I suspect that the two are not unconnected.) I'm writing this in part because I feel like I'm still working through some important questions, and as I write I find myself bracing against the comments.
I understand people's attachment to 'science', and to 'being scientific'. Claims based on faith, or on 'commonsense', or on rumour, are frequently harmful. The spread of 'intelligent design' in the US and the reemergence of polio in Nigeria are two examples of the very real damage that can be caused. On the other hand, there is significant evidence to show that the faith we place in a particular version of 'science' is often misplaced.
'Science', for most people, means quantitative studies and people (usually men) in white coats and articles in published journals that have tidy hypotheses and definitive data. I don't underrate the value of this version of science - comparing results against hypothesis and trying to attain more objective perspectives on important questions has often been useful and beneficial.
I do, however, have a problem with the assumption that this version of science gives us 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'.
A few of my issues with this assumption:
1) It assumes that there is only one truth, and science brings us closer to it. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative and all truths are constructed and subjective. On the other hand, I think that in many cases multiple answers can be provided for the same question, all of which correlate significantly with some kind of 'objective reality'.
2) Science carried out under this assumption is biased towards particular kinds of research, and particular questions. To take an example from a debate I've been having often: it's easier to produce tidy, quantitative studies that address mental illness at the level of the individual, rather than at the level of society. Investigating whether a particular regime of cognitive therapy produces benefits fits the 'scientific model' more neatly than does asking whether a massive political reorganisation of society would lead to improved mental health. On the whole, it seems that research that breaks issues up into their component parts rather than addressing complex, messy, systems is often perceived as more 'scientifically rigorous'.
3) Science is not apolitical. It reproduces other power structures within society, including the construction of gender and race. This happens at various levels: both the systematic (although decreasing) exclusion of certain classes, genders, and races from scientific fields as professions, and in the framing of hypotheses and research directions. For example, why do we give so much money for research into obesity and subatomic particles? At the extremes, these exclusions mean that certain questions may not just receive less attention - they may never be asked at all.
This means that 'being scientific', and even 'being critical', may not mean exactly what people think. It might not mean a rigorous evaluation of truth-claims, but instead a reliance on figures of authority and journal articles with tidy data.
The alternative (or at least one of the alternatives) is not necessarily to rely on faith, but to look more carefully at the context, politics, and framing of how 'science' and 'scientific studies' take place. As Sandra Harding argues, this can be seen as a more rigorously scientific approach.
-------
Image by Paul W Locke, of Suzanne Pittenger.
Lately my Facebook feed has become the site of quite a few political discussions. It's been suggested that I move a few here, so I thought I'd try it out and see how it went.
First, a question from Ben R.: This [Pirate Bay verdict] has been all over the news today, and I thought you were the person to ask. What does this mean
for the file sharing community? What kind of legal precedent does this
set? What can/should be done about this?
SC: Well, Sweden seems to be really cracking down at the moment. A week and
a half ago a new law came into force that will oblige ISPs to hand over
the details of users that fileshare. Internet traffic in Sweden dropped
by 30-40%, depending on which story you read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/04/sweden-pirate-bay-filesharing-internet...
Personally,
I'm not really sold on the idea that filesharing Hollywood movies is an
act of civil disobedience. What's worrying for me is that most of the
laws that target filesharing have the potential to catch other acts in
the net, including the sharing of creative commons material. Increasing
government surveillance of online use, limits on what you can do
online, and collaborations between governments and large content
industries are also worrying, because they decrease the potential of
the Internet to be used by social movements and other
non-institutionalised actors.
Also: what should be done? ISPs probably have an interesting in forming
a coalition and attempting to stop legislation like this from passing.
In Sweden, membership of the piratpartiet (Pirate Party) has surged (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/swedish-pirate-party.html).
The fact that people are realising that copyright law affects them is a
good thing, and it's even better that they're trying to organise to do
something about it. We'll see what happens from here.
BR: Well, as you know, I'm in two minds about the filesharing thing. I
don't think anyone should have to pay for access to intangible creative
goods; it is difficult to accept the idea that creative pursuits can be
owned, and thus can become property. On the other hand, I think that
the onus is on producers to offer their work under licenses such as creative
commons. Consumers don't automatically have the right to subvert the
intellectual property model which is, lamentably, the only artist
payment model we currently have. (That model is of course horrendously
flawed, but I think it's up to the artistic community to create change,
and I don't think refusing to pay for creative goods produced under
such a model is a legitimate form of political expression).
Definitely with you on the ISPs, and the surge of people joining
activist movements; it is fascinating that Internet 'piracy' is a
mainstream political concern in Sweden. People do need to fight against
more Government surveillance; there is no real excuse for it,
particularly not intellectual property laws. This, if nothing else, is
outrageous, and should cause citizens to organise.
SC: I agree that there are strong arguments against the idea that consumers
automatically have the right to subvert the current intellectual
'property' model. But, on the other hand, I think that's beside the
point. If we're developing technology that subverts that model, and the
only way to protect the old way of doing things is to break that technology
(along with all the wonderful possibilities that accompany it), then
thinking of content creators as having a 'right' to their 'property'
that trumps other rights is problematic.
If it was a matter of
consumers just demanding that they be given free books or DVDs it would
be different, but the issue is that technology has changed to make
copying easier...the impetus hasn't really come from either consumers
or artists (although both have certainly taken to new media technology).
Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a movie about a young woman who finds fun, friendship, and purpose by joining a radical feminist culture jamming group. It's not entirely unproblematic (what is?), but is nevertheless entertaining and opens up some useful ideas and debates. I'd love to watch it with some of my friends and relatives who don't know much about feminist politics or culture jamming.
There's one thing* that really bugs me about the movie: it opens with a heartfelt admonishment against filesharing, including uploading sections of the movie to YouTube, and warns viewers that copyright infringement is illegal.
This seems somewhat hypocritical to me given that one of the movie's main lessons seems to be that serious property damage can be a great way to get your message across (and find love). Characters in the movie graffitti buildings, break into shops, and blow stuff up, all of which seems to be sanctioned.
Intellectual 'property' is not the same as physical property. If I steal a chair you made, you don't have the chair any more. If I copy your movie, you still have the movie. If there are cases in which it's acceptable to steal or damage physical property, surely there are also cases in which it's acceptable to copy movies, music, books, and so on.
I'm not saying that copying Itty Bitty Titty Committee is necessarily one of those cases. On the other hand, just saying 'it's illegal to fileshare' before a movie that sanctions plenty of other illegal actions seems to be a tad patronising.
I first heard about Itty Bitty Titty Committee because someone I met at a workshop gave me a copy from their harddrive (along with a heap of music). I returned the favour, giving them music and documentaries I thought that they'd enjoy. There's no way that Itty Bitty Titty Committee would be stocked at my local video store, and I have bought exactly zero movies in my life.
What do you prioritise as an artist - getting your message out or making money?
And if you need to make money from your art, as most artists do, are there ways of doing it that don't involve threatening or talking down to your viewers?
------
* Okay, a few things, but I'll stick to this one.
Image from chebbs.
Asha Achuthan has an interesting series of posts over at the CIS website, a work in progress that she writes will:
- lay down the historical and geo-political
contexts for the use of technology in India
- engage with existing concepts like context,
postcoloniality, organicity, and exclusion that have come into use with the
critical responses to technology in India
-
offer a conceptual vocabulary that explains the
tools being used to engage with the question, and
- suggest strategies for testing of the hypotheses
being set forward in the paper, as well as parallel modes of generating
‘critical debate’ on them.
I've particularly enjoyed reading about the debates between Gandhi and Tagore over technology, and about the relationship of the charkha programme (Gandhi's push for homespun cotton) and swaraj (self-sufficiency).
I'm currently grappling with the close-to-final edit of my first chapter, which discusses critical theories of science, technology, and knowledge, and am trying to engage with postcolonial and subaltern work in the area. This aspect of the field will probably not end up getting as much attention as I would like it to in the final text, purely because at some point you have to stop researching and writing and hand the thing in, but I'm hoping to become more familiar with these perspectives for future research.
I've been reading Judy Wajcman's Technofeminism, and just stumbled on a sentence:
'Oudshoorn shows how discourses about the natural body shaped the Pill, and how the Pill, in turn, constructed women's bodies as universal with respect to their reproductive functions' [emphasis added] (2004: 50).
I find this 'their' intriguing. On the one hand, many feminists (and many others) argue against the subject-object divide in research. On the other hand, the conventions of writing often make it seem natural to distance ourself from those we are writing about. Would it read right like this:
'the Pill, in turn, constructed women's bodies as universal with respect to our reproductive functions' ?
Not a huge issue, but one of the many small decisions that I find interesting as I try to turn my thesis into a more-or-less finished* 'product'. Am I writing about 'us' or 'them'?
-----
* Yochai Benkler argues that we don't produce a single 'finished work' in academia these days, an idea that is interesting to me and also rather reassuring, as I grapple with my frustrations at the limitations of my thesis.
Teaching, I spend a lot of time sternly admonishing my students not to use Wikipedia in their essays.
Writing, I spend a lot of time talking about the benefits of Wikipedia and similar peer-produced knowledge collections.
For a while now, I've been daydreaming about developing an exercise that would help students appreciate (and contribute to) Wikipedia, while at the same time helping them to understand why they shouldn't use it*.
Happily, over at the Rebellious Reader Alexa Garvoille is one step ahead of me:
In response to current anxieties over students’ ability to
critically evaluate internet-based sources, we propose a secondary
curriculum that uses Wikipedia as a platform to pose questions about
information verifiability, ethical use of technology, and the
democratic role of internet-users. We argue that the examination of
Wikipedia provides a developmentally relevant approach to guiding
adolescents into higher levels of thinking. The proposed project,
appropriate for any discipline, but here concerned with high school
English, develops traditional research and editing skills and
culminates in a contribution to public knowledge through writing and
editing underdeveloped Wikipedia pages (stubs). Methods for project
implementation, including suggestions for scaffolding and
differentiating learner tasks, are included.
Sounds great! I'd love to get a chance to run it at the uni level.
-------
* In short, they shouldn't use it because it's an encyclopedia, and you generally don't use encyclopedias to bolster your arguments in academic writing. Unfortunately, many of my students have got the 'don't use Wikipedia' message loud and clear without understanding the broader lesson behind it.
Jamie King, the maker of 'Steal This Film', is teaming up with Peter Mann to produce 'Dark Fibre', a documentary/film that looks at the 'informational life' of Bangalore. It will explore the world of cablewallahs who set up the city's networks, as well as telling the (fictional) story of a cablewallah who decide to retool "the disparate home-brew networks in the city into a grassroots, horizontal 'people's network'" to connect the city.
I can't wait to watch it! In the meantime, I've been reading interviews with the makers over on Bangalore's Centre for the Internet and Society and on The Hindu. The Bangalore streetscape (and soundscape!) on darkfibre.in is amazing, and you can follow the adventures of filming on their feed.
---------
Image from late_bloomer.
* ACMA's list of banned websites has supposedly been leaked: Owner of Wikileaks.de's house is raided. Senator Conroy denies it is the real list. On a related note, the NZ has abandoned their proposed '3 strikes' law, which would have led to users being kicked of their ISPs if they received three complaints - not necessarily verified - of copyright infringement.
* A great post from Lisa Nakamura on digital piecework over on Difference Engines.
* I missed Ada Lovelace Day, celebrating women in science and technology. More here, including a collection of blog posts celebrating the day. On a related note, I am quite intrigued by this talk: "Everything I needed to know about the Web I learned from feminism", and am going to hunt around for more on it.
* Making Invisible Learning Visible: "
a five-year
collaborative effort to study the impact of technology on learning,
began as an
effort to make visible the hidden intermediate processes students
undergo on
the path to learning."
* Google's 'Moderator' tool "gives participants a way to submit questions and vote for the ones they want answered." We've been discussing democracy - direct and representative - this week in my tutorials, so the implications of this are interesting to consider.
* Over in the UK, Indymedia worries that new legislation may make hosting Indymedia servers illegal.
* A PhD student writes to the Smart Set asking how to use poetry in their writing. I've been thinking similar thoughts myself - in my case, I've been enjoying the more direct and personal letter form that is used a lot in This Bridge Called My Back: Radical Writing by Women of Color, and wondering if I could incorporate that form between and around my more formal writing.
* Screen Sifar blogs about pad.ma, "a non-commercial archival website where you can download, watch, learn
about, use and add to documentary video footage from various sources,
for free!" - yet another exciting project coming out of India.
* Blogging continues over at the Bluestocking Blog, recent blogs cover: images of the recession, Perth praxis, building bridges, ironic responses to the economic crisis and the lack of empathy in intractable conflicts.
NSW police have just gained new powers to search people's houses and computers covertly. Happily police will have to get warrants. Also, don't worry, as they'll only be targeting "gangs".
[Via Slashdot, which provides further links and vociferous discussion.]