Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

I initially think of “open source” to denote free software, with available source code for universal access and use by anyone (whether it is used as is or as modified code).

Petrina, Volk & Kim (2004) define “open source” to be “processes of creating, distributing, using, modifying and sharing software programs without the fear of patent infringements in both commercial and non-commercial environments.” According to these authors, Linux is at the heart of current open source software movement which evolved into initiatives by others including Sun Microsystem’s Openoffice.org and MIT’s OpenCourseWare.

According to the Open Source Initiative (2011), the definition of open source doesn’t merely stop at accessible source code.  There’s a “top ten” list of criteria that open-source software has to comply with including:

1. Free redistribution

2. Source code

3. Derived works

4. Integrity of the author’s source code

5. No discrimination against persons or groups

6. No discrimination against fields of endeavors

7. Distribution of license

8. License must not be specific to a product

9. License must not restrict other software

10. License must be technology-neutral

(Source: Open Source Initiative, 2011 at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd)

On p.71 of our course textbook, Murphie and Potts (2003) assert that the open source movement argues that “basic software should be freely available to all and should be developed freely within a network of benevolent programmers constituting something like the “collective intelligence” advocated by Pierre Levy. Interestingly enough, the next open source movement for higher education (asides from course management systems) is the administrative side- with Kuali leading the charge. Jaschik (2009) discusses this at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali. Another useful e-resource examines what’s next for open knowledge and is available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712chap27.pdf

References

García-Peñalvo, F. J. , de Figuerola, C. G., & Merlo,  J. A. (2010). Open knowledge management in higher education. Online Information Review, 34(4). Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1876485&show=html

Gregg, D. (2009). UBC implementation- Kuali CM. Retrieved from http://www.it.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/UBC_Implementation_-_Kuali_CM_Presentation_by_Doug_Gregg9166.pdf

Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2008). Chapter 27: What’s next for open knowledge? In T. Iiyoshi & M.S. Vijay Kumar, Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 417-428). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712chap27.pdf

Jaschik, S. (2009). The next open source movement. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali

Kuali Foundation. (n.d.). About the Kuali community. Retrieved from http://www.kuali.org/about

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Chapter 3: Digital aesthetics: Cultural effects of new media technologies. In A. Murphie & J. Potts, Culture and technology (pp.66-94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Open Source Initiative. (2011). The open source definition. Retrieved from http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Petrina, S., Volk, K., & Kim, S. (2004). Technology and rights. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(3), 1-16.

UBC Student Services. (n.d.). Kuali student: Background. Retrieved from: http://www.students.ubc.ca/mura/kuali/

The Copyright Act available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html (in html) and http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-42.pdf (in pdf format) details the rights that are bundled within a copyright in Canada.

In brief, Petrina (2003) outlines the 5 bundled rights in a copyright to consist of the following:

1. Reproduction– the right to create identical or near identical copies of the work.

2. Adaptation– the right to create derivative works, such as abridgements, translations or versions in a range of media (book to movie to video to CD to on-line game).

3. Distribution– the right to make the first sale of each authorized copy of the work.

4. Performance– the right to present, recite, play, act or publicly perform the work.

5. Display– the right to publicly show the work, by means of film, radio, TV, WWW or other device.

According to the UBC Library, the changes in Access Copyright (an organization that collects copyright fees for publishers from universities and colleges) arrangements have affected the university (and their students) financially. More information about this can be found at: http://collections.library.ubc.ca/copyright. There’s also an informative copyright guide available from UBC Library at: http://collections.library.ubc.ca/copyright/copying-and-scanning-at-ubc

IPRs are intellectually property rights. Murphie and Potts (2003) define intellectual property to be “the ownership of particular items of knowledge, ideas or cultural production” and Petrina (2003) outlines the challenges and issues of “unbundling” (i.e. assigning) intellectual property rights to authors, employers, publishers, universities, etc particularly in the context of distance education and offers a guideline on how to protect your IP rights.

According to the World Trade Organization (2011), they are the “rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time” There are two major forms that they take: 1) copyright and rights related to copyright; and 2) industrial property. For more information from the WTO about intellectual property rights check out: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm.

In Canada, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office administers intellectual property (IP) laws and regulations by granting ownership for five types of IP: patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies.  For more information about IP and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, check out the following links at:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00331.html

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00027.html

Also, in terms of intellectual property rights crimes, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) outlines it as “copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting” which is a growing international phenomenon linked to organized crime and terrorism. Here’s more information about the penalties and additional resources about intellectual property rights crimes at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/fep-pelf/ipr-dpi/publications-eng.htm

Interestingly, I found that the minimalism “plain” Bauhaus designs were partly attributed to the effect of the science discipline on Bauhaus designers. For example, Anker (2005) cited science as having a profound affect on Bauhaus designers in their development of design. I’d recommend reading “The Bauhaus of Nature” by Peder Anker as it outlines how the Bauhaus designers were influenced by the biological sciences and ecological concerns while reestablishing the school in London after being expelled from Germany. I particularly found it insightful as it explained how ecological sciences and Bauhaus design merged in H.G. Wells’ utopian visions for a society that was harmonious with nature. Ultimately, this has led to the combination of art and science. As Anker (2010) asserts “the unification of art and science is at the heart of the history of ecological design. Bauhaus designers believed that design must follow the laws of nature in order to function effectively. Rightly labeled by one of their contemporaries as “scientific architects,” they saw science as a key vehicle for design development.” Thus, another lasting contribution of the Bauhaus is in the evolution of ecological design.

Here’s the citation below:
Anker, P. (2005). The Bauhaus of nature. Modernism/modernity, 12(2), 229-251. Retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modernism-modernity/v012/12.2anker.html

Also, an additional informative resource by the same author:
Anker, P. (2010). From Bauhaus to ecohouse: A history of ecological design. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Retrieved from: http://arquesustenta.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/2/3/2923945/from_bauhaus_to_ecohouse.pdf

Originating in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, high art was considered to be an elitist cultural practice as depicted in paintings and sculptures whereas low art was then defined by commonly manually made craft and technology in the form of mechanics, drawing, and design (Murphie & Potts, 2003). This separation occurred between fine and applied arts due to the division of labour that was formed as a result of industrial capitalism.According to Jowi Taylor (2007), these distinctions are made in other areas than art (i.e. societal class systems) and are rooted in religion. He goes on to state that: “Shame is a human invention and the high/low distinction is one of its by-products – a fear of the carnal. The assumption is that “high art” appeals to those of refined sensibilities while “low art” is merely consumed like so much opium; the higher classes are predisposed to consider the finer things in life, dabble in philosphy and wine-collecting while the lower classes must concern themselves simply with survival; and that intellectual pursuits offer an escape from the tyranny of our appetites.” Moreover, Brian Eno is cited by Taylor (2007) stating that “the difference between high art and low art is that low art is unafraid to appeal to the senses, and high art is suspicious of the delicious, as if one were being seduced for impure reasons.”Ultimately, I think that art in any form connects with individuals on a variety of levels whether it be emotional, intellectual, and it shouldn’t matter whether it’s categorized as high or low. Thus, I agree with Taylor (2007) in that creating a distinction between high/low art is akin to snobbery as it differentiates class systems of elitists/high classes vs. other classes of society. However, unfortunately these separations still do exist even in today’s modern society. Furthermore, as Taylor (2007) boldly states no one has a claim on the “purity” of their appreciations of art and thus it is a mistake for people to attempt to preserve this distinction between high/low culture as it assumes that one culture gets a more refined, prestigious, unique experience that other cultures (i.e. the masses that consume pop music) could not achieve.

References:

Murphie, A. and Potts, J. (2003). Culture and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Taylor, J. (2007). Thoughts from the grove: High art/low art. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/blog/2007/06/19/thoughts_from_the_grove_high_a.html

Additional resources include:Barrett, T. (1997). Modernism and postmodernism: An overview with art examples. In J. Hutchens & M. Suggs (Eds.), Art education: Content and practice in a postmodern era (p. 17-30). Washington, DC: NAEA. Retrieved from: http://www.terrybarrettosu.com/pdfs/B_PoMo_97.pdfBright, B. & Blakewell, L. (Eds.). (1995). Looking high and low: Art and cultural identity. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Efland, A. (2007). Interlude: Arts education the aesthetic and cultural studies. In L. Bresler (Ed.). International handbook of research in arts education (p. 39-44). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/un2125k316n77j1m/(*Note: According to Efland (2007) pop art eliminated the boundary between high/low art and minimalism erased the distinction between fine art and industrial process).Kruger, B. (1990). What’s high, what’s low? And who cares? New York Times, p.43.(*Note: In her article, Barbara Kruger (1990) rejects modernists’ hierarchical fixations of high vs. low culture for their “false authority, pat answers and easy systems“).

The Bahaus was originally a school in Germany founded by an architect named Walter Gropius in 1919 which combined fine arts and crafts leading to a modernist movement. Their aesthetic principle resided in minimalist design without any embellishments (“non-functional decoration”) and their overarching objective aimed to improve societal conditions using technology. It blurred the boundaries between art and technology by combining traditionally separate disciplines. Due to the rise of technological advancements it is without question that the use of technology for artistic/creative design has increased. Thus, the Bauhaus has had a profound influence on the subsequent developments in art, architecture, cinema, computer animation, web design, graphic design, etc. An example of its long-lasting contributions includes modernist architecture of high-rise buildings, mass-produced housing, and town planning. According to Murphie & Potts (2003), this demonstrates the contradictions of modernist culture: “a belief in progress and rationalization on one hand, and a utopian desire on the other.”

Two of the major pervasive concerns that musicians may have with digital media include:1) Copyright issues with digital media resulting in changes to how revenue is generated and distributed in the music industryPerhaps one of the most well-known and contentious issues facing musicians and the music industry as a whole is the challenge of piracy and unauthorized file-sharing of digital media (including music, movies, etc). Ultimately as the music industry is itself a business, the effects of piracy and illegal downloading off the Internet has affected their potential revenues. Due to the increase in peer-to-peer file sharing networks individuals can easily download, copy, and share files more than ever before. Although Napster was one of the original peer-to-peer file sharing service on the Internet it faced multiple legal challenges namely for copyright infringement. Now it has become a pay-based service similar to iTunes. However, the availability of fee-based music services have not deterred individuals from continuing to freely distribute files over the Internet. This is probably one of the major areas of concern musicians face and one that may lead to continued legal disputes.2) An overall shift in the music industry’s traditional business model- increased presence in social media outlets

Due to the ongoing technological advancements it seems like musicians now either have to embrace technology and social media wholeheartedly or face the risk of getting left behind. Due to the shift from consumers purchasing vinyl records to cassettes to CDs to now more than ever digital media in mp3/wma formats many musicians have opted to stay afloat by becoming more engaged through YouTube, Facebook, and other social media outlets. This shift has nearly levelled the playing field in a way where individuals such as Justin Bieber can become overnight sensations due to the explosion of instant uploading and self-promotion on the Internet. Thus, another challenge that musicians face is how to creatively utilize the onslaught of digital media to their advantage to market themselves to a growing online fan base.