I watched Lessig’s TED talk and I belive that the premise of his arguement is that he feels that we need to de-criminalize the act of taking something and remixing to create something ultimately different.   He reminds us that many years ago, we would make mixed tapes to share with one and other.   Today’s youth is using the technology that they have available to create mixed CD’s, remix songs, and create ‘new’ digital media.   He sees this as creativity and generally a new form of literacy.   He does distinguish between when this is done for profit or for the simple “love” of creating.   At the begiining of his talk, he tells three different stories.   The first is about a man named Sousa who argued that the talking machine (radio) would cause humanity to loose the ability to hear the voices of millions.   In reality he was right because as listen to the radio and the songs broadcasted we narrow the voices we hear.   Similarly when we watch television we are a “read-only” audience.   Sousa felt that this caused us to loose our ability as a “read-write” culture.  Lessig takes us back to this notion and argues that the internet provides an opportunity for the “read-write” culture to make a come back.   User generated content sites such as YouTube, Flickr, Picassa, and so on enhance this.   He speaks of “common sense” and asks whether or not it makes good sense to label those re-creating for fun or out of a love of the new technology as “pirates”.   I personally tend to agree with Lessig, as long as the “new” is done not for profit.

I think problems with IP become complicated when money is involved.   Business greed takes over common sense and rather than work together for the common good of society, ideas are held top-secret.   Take for instance cancer research.   I have a friend whose husband works for a pharmaceutical company.   He is sworn to secrecy because the drug company he works for wants to be the first to patent drug that cure various forms of cancer.   If they accomplish this, they can then set their own drug prices and their stocks, if public, rise.  It is really very sad when take a step back and look at the big picture.

Tonight Pam pointed out that the drug Gleevec which I mentioned my mom takes, was discussed on page 198 of Petrina.   I had to do a bit of searching to access this article but I am sure glad I did.   Sorry for posting this reflections so late ~ I appreciate the saying “better late than never” tonight.  Thing outside of my control got in the way this weekend.

So I just finished reading Technology and Rights by Petrina et al.  Fascinating article with some highly upsetting points.   Some of the things percolating in my mind are:

• I read Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four in high school and was shocked to read the similarities to current day society, especially “governments [who] indulge in the technology of fear and surveillance” (p. 183).   It reminded me of a talk I heard on surveillance at the Recurring Questions of Technology Institute this past summer.   Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the scholar who gave it.   Will post tomorrow if I can find his name.
• The idea of convergence really stuck with me.   Thrilled with all the new functions and possibilities of an Iphone 5 and the multi-modal ways students can collaborate and create using new technologies, I have enjoyed the benefits of technological convergence.   Yet when I read about the “1.4 billion farmers in the world” (p. 197) who can no longer afford to buy genetically modified seed from companies such as Monsanto, I am left asking myself “What is wrong with society and why have we set up convergence to work against us?
• A quote I connected with was “nowadays the discomfort is personal” (p.201).   On page 198 the authors discuss the drug Gleevec.   My mom who had leukemia ten years ago takes this miracle drug and it has allowed us to have her in our lives for many more years that we ever thought we would.   When I read of poor leukemia patients who cannot afford to purchase this drug, it became personal.   Why should my mother receive a drug that enables her to live and yet another human is denied the same privilege?   This is wrong and frankly I believe immoral.   I don’t know how the CEO’s of Norvatis sleep at night knowing people are dying and they have a way to save them.   Thank goodness we live in a country that “became the first to permit generic drug companies to copy, make and export” to other nations (p. 200)
• The authors suggest technologial literacy will empower students and people in general to take a stand and become involved in the issues of technology and rights.   Although I somewhat agree, I see this as only one small step.   People need to be educated on moral issues, to understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong.   When did corporate greed, money and power become more important than people.   It seems to me that there is a whole lot of wrong with society and it make me sad.