I frequently use Wikipedia article-writing as an extra credit option in college film and TV courses.
It works well, because students can fill in details on sometimes obscure, but still notable, topics -- e.g., plot summaries of films. Plus, since they're reading original sources for my courses, they can also cite those sources, as Wikipedia policy demands. They submit the URLs of the articles they've modified/created to me and I always check them for accuracy and proper wiki-style.
In addition to increasing Wikipedia's breadth/depth on film/TV topics, it encourages students to get involved in the Wikipedia-editing process.
I find it a shame that UCLA won't contest this attack on fair use, because the fair-use defense desperately needs some clarification in the context of copyrighted video being used in an educational context.
For cinema professors, it's essential that they be able to provide their primary texts (i.e., films) to students. Over the past 15-20 years, it's become clear that it is fair use for cinema educators to use film stills in PowerPoint slide shows, course Web sites, and textbooks. See, for example, Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art. Initially, however, copyright holders objected to this use of stills, wrongly claimed that it was not fair use, and demanded payment. Despite this resistance, fair-use of stills has become standard practice.
Unfortunately, there is no similar standard for fair use of moving images. And, because UCLA is not using fair use to defend the posting of (copyrighted) video in a password-protected online system open only to students, an important opportunity to set precedent has been lost.
The result will be chilling. If freakin' UCLA cannot defend the fair-use posting of videos, then what chance does the average state university or small private college have?
For over a year now, I've been doing something similar in film-studies classes I teach and I'd say the results have been far less than 'transformative', as TFA reports. In fact, I'd say it's been more failure than success and I discontinued a good part of it this year.
Here's what I did last academic year, in two junior/senior-level seminars:
All students were required to contribute to a wiki I run -- collaboratively producing lecture and discussion notes.
Students were also offered extra credit to edit film articles on Wikipedia.
The results of this wiki experiment were mixed. Less than half of the students did the required assignment -- even though their grades were lowered for lack of participation and constructing lecture/discussion notes would have been a huge advantage to them on the exams.
And, as far as the extra-credit option goes, out of about 40 students, only 3 chose to do it. The ones that did sent me their Wikipedia ID and a link to the articles they edited. By checking the articles' history pages I could easily see how much work they did and how good it was.
I wish I had a better sense of why my wiki experiment failed. Is wiki editing (which works like word processing did in, oh, 1985) too hard and unfamiliar? Are students unwilling to share their lecture/discussion notes with others? Should the assignments have been structured differently? Were these particular students luddites who did not understand the technology of wikis? Did I not give them enough instruction on how wikis work?
I really don't know the answer, but my experience last year was negative enough that this year I eliminated the required wiki work, although I am still offering extra credit for editing Wikipedia articles. We'll see how it goes.
But it turns out that they are relying on the claim that screen shots from movie trailers are public domain, instead of fair use. I'm not sure, however, how reliable that claim is. In fact, it's been discussed on Wikipedia several times -- including:
The summary sez "According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon."
TFA asks if Apple missed an opportunity and then concludes that it did not:
With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?
I had to laugh at the attendance for Chemistry 3B, lecture 21. Yeah, that's about par for the course for Orgo that late in the term. That vid is quite self-reflexive as the professor comments on the students' poor performance on an exam (average grade appears to be 40%!) and suggests that one problem may be that students are skipping lecture and relying on the podcast. As he comments: "You can't beat the live performance."
One concern I'd have is: What if the PwdHash project dies and their site goes offline permanently? And let's presume that the extension is also no longer available, or just that you're using a computer without it. As I understand it, the user would then have no way of generating or even knowing what his/her passwords are.
In this situation, you'd have to reset all your passwords, but even that would be tricky because many sites demand your old password before you set a new one.
I suppose one could use the PwdHash site's form to generate all one's hashed passwords and then store them locally in an encrypted file. But I thought one purpose of PwdHash was to make password management easier, not harder.
For those that would like to read the actual "Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works" from the Library of Congress:
The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
These exemptions will go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006 and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.
Before installing FF 2 on my Windows XP box I'd heard of "improvements" in tab behavior that I suspected would annoy me (e.g., "close" buttons on individual tabs instead of just one; which at least can be un-improved through about:config). However, what I didn't expect is that there would be new bugs in the tab implementation that would affect how I read Slashdot's daily "headlines" email on Gmail.
In the "old" days, when I clicked a link in the Slashdot-headlines email message, FF 1.5 opened a new window and shifted the focus to it. (Incidentally, this is also what MS IE 7 does so I presume this is the intended behavior.)
FF 2.0, in contrast, opens a new tab and shifts the focus to that tab. Each of these behaviors irritates me.
And the buggy thing about this is that in Options -> Tabs I have set "New pages should be open in..." to "A new window" (not a new tab) and UN-ticked "When I open a link in a new tab, switch to it immediately."
In FF 1.5, I could work around the focus shift with a simple ALT-tab and, moreover, separate windows fit the way I read the Slashdot headlines. Separate tabs do not.
So, in sum, as much as I love FF and prefer it over IE (and as much as I love the new spellchecking feature--which, incidentally, just marked "spellchecking" as an error), I may have to back-step to the almost-latest version.
To be more precise about the definition of "fair use" under US law, ask these four questions about the use being made (summarized in a Wired article from 2003):
Yes, I think TFA's author is referring to the TCP/IP cloud -- as used by Douglas Comer and others. A "précis of Chapter 17 of Doug Comer's book" shows the cloud(s) in action.
Douglas Comer, Computer Networks and Internets with Internet Applications (fourth edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004, ISBN 0-13-143351-2.
"It's also easier to move your iTunes from one computer to another. Let's say you have one computer at home and at work, both authorized with the same account. You can transfer purchased content between authorized computers - it'll upload from your iPod to your work iTunes." (my emphasis)
Is this not a major shift for iTunes?
One thing that's kept me from using iTunes much and feelin' the love for my iPod is their previously clunky way of syncing with multiple computers. I haven't tried it in months, but last time I did the iPod did not play well with more than one computer. I wanted it to sync as smoothly and intelligently as my Palm PDA syncs my calendar app. But it didn't.
If the new iTunes has finally gotten smart about syncing multiple computers I might finally become a podhead.
I can think of pegagogical uses, too. For instance, it sounds like a useful way for students to do their own critiques of films/TV shows.
I teach film/TV studies and I could see an assignment in which students create an audio version of an analysis of, say, Citizen Kane. They could talk about the film's visual and sound style right over the film itself.
I don't suppose Sharecrow (or another DVD player) allows you to program in pauses in the playback. That would make it even more useful for analytical purposes--e.g., Gregg Toland and Orson Welles helped to build interest in the use of deep focus with shots like THIS ONE. [pause]
The only problems I see with Sharecrow (and I haven't tried it yet) are the reliance upon a "directshow compatible DVD player" and the lack of any non-Windows versions. Still, I'm intrigued enough to give it a shot.
Significantly, the satellite (i.e., DirecTV) version of TiVo has its networking capabilities crippled so that it does NONE of the following without major hacking:
Tivo can move recodings off the tivo onto the server.
Tivo can talk to other tivo's in the same house and move recodings around.
Tivo can access content on your pc for playback on your TV. (Think rip all your DVD's and never have to touch them again)
Tivo allows you to access 3rd party applications.
Tivo will stream internet sources and MP3's
It's a constant source of frustration to me.
However, it did not stop me from (yesterday) ordering a new, HD, DirecTV TiVo. Why? As of 1 April, they're carrying four local channels in HD.
Comcast's HD DVR ostensibly does the same thing. I tried it and the HD is good, but the standard definition local channels are crap. They take them over the air (and not from the satellite) and they've never looked that good.
And on the flip side, where the "OS for everything else" is Windows, not OSX (as Em Adespoton implies), the "one word" could be the phrase "Final Cut Pro."
I'm seriously considering buying a dual-boot Mac for the sole purpose of shoring up the non-linear editing on Windows.
Even though lately I've been happy to edit video in Adobe Premiere or even Premiere Elements on WinXP, all of my DV pals use FCP. I'd love to be able to profit from their expertise by switching to FCP myself.
Yes, it is true that the answers to your questions are out there...Linux does have copious documentation. But the fact of the matter is that a simple answer to a simple question can do much more than save the newbie hours of combing through MAN pages...
Too true!
Having only worked with Linux for 2 years, I'm still relatively new to it. From the start, I have found MAN pages to be very difficult to use. They're too terse and they too often rely on knowledge that a newcomer won't have.
Just as Real used to mislead users through deceptive graphics and an intentionally obscured, minimized link to its free player, Apple is doing its best to pretend the standalone version of QuickTime doesn't exist.
I've been using QuickTime for years and actually prefer it as a format for Web delivery of video, but I was considering dumping it because I too thought there was no sans iTunes option anymore.
Too bad the Google Press Center didn't read any of the accounts of Rosa Parks' courageous actions. If they had, they might've learned that the bus boycott she started occurred in Montgomery, not Birmingham, as they say:
The 92-year-old U.S. civil rights figure died in October, sparking much news and commentary about her life and her legacy. The extent of coverage spoke to the appeal of her historical act of defiance: sitting in a whites-only section of a Birmingham, Alabama city bus in 1955. Earlier in the year, queries about her reflected keen interest during Black History Month.
'Course those of us with DirecTV's brand of TiVo are left out of this networking option. Again.
Yahoo's new service only works with TiVo version 2. Due to copyright restrictions, DirecTiVo has never been able to be networked -- a constant source of annoyance to me.
The alliance between DirecTV and TiVo is on shaky ground anyway, because DirecTV has begun to market its own DVR. But then, these days, who doesn't? My 2-year-old son should have his DVR ready for distribution soon. He's named it after his favorite toy: FiretruckVo.
I also had a recent bad experience trying to get off of AOL. Short version: I called to cancel. The operator said she would and then she continued my subscription.
I sent them a sharply worded letter of complaint and cancellation, but a friend of mine who teaches telecommunication law recommended I go beyond that and register a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in addition to the more obvious choices of the BBB and the FCC. It seems like a good way to get AOL's attention.
Incidentally, the BBB now has a nice automated system on line for filing complaints against AOL or any other misbehaving business.
A very handy site that allows you to work with live demos as either an administrator or a regular user. And it's kept up to date with the latest versions of the CMS's.
"No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page."
I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of parodies of the American Humane Association's ratings. Incidentally, you can find the ratings themselves over here:
Slashdot Mirror
It looks remarkably similar (down to the capitalization of words) to a list circulating since at least 2005 of words banned from NFL jerseys.
See
http://www.outsports.com/nfl/2005/0301nflshopnaughtywords.htm
'Course, perhaps Pakistan just borrowed this list.
It works well, because students can fill in details on sometimes obscure, but still notable, topics -- e.g., plot summaries of films. Plus, since they're reading original sources for my courses, they can also cite those sources, as Wikipedia policy demands. They submit the URLs of the articles they've modified/created to me and I always check them for accuracy and proper wiki-style.
In addition to increasing Wikipedia's breadth/depth on film/TV topics, it encourages students to get involved in the Wikipedia-editing process.
For cinema professors, it's essential that they be able to provide their primary texts (i.e., films) to students. Over the past 15-20 years, it's become clear that it is fair use for cinema educators to use film stills in PowerPoint slide shows, course Web sites, and textbooks. See, for example, Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art. Initially, however, copyright holders objected to this use of stills, wrongly claimed that it was not fair use, and demanded payment. Despite this resistance, fair-use of stills has become standard practice.
Unfortunately, there is no similar standard for fair use of moving images. And, because UCLA is not using fair use to defend the posting of (copyrighted) video in a password-protected online system open only to students, an important opportunity to set precedent has been lost.
The result will be chilling. If freakin' UCLA cannot defend the fair-use posting of videos, then what chance does the average state university or small private college have?
Here's what I did last academic year, in two junior/senior-level seminars:
- All students were required to contribute to a wiki I run -- collaboratively producing lecture and discussion notes.
- Students were also offered extra credit to edit film articles on Wikipedia.
The results of this wiki experiment were mixed. Less than half of the students did the required assignment -- even though their grades were lowered for lack of participation and constructing lecture/discussion notes would have been a huge advantage to them on the exams.And, as far as the extra-credit option goes, out of about 40 students, only 3 chose to do it. The ones that did sent me their Wikipedia ID and a link to the articles they edited. By checking the articles' history pages I could easily see how much work they did and how good it was.
I wish I had a better sense of why my wiki experiment failed. Is wiki editing (which works like word processing did in, oh, 1985) too hard and unfamiliar? Are students unwilling to share their lecture/discussion notes with others? Should the assignments have been structured differently? Were these particular students luddites who did not understand the technology of wikis? Did I not give them enough instruction on how wikis work?
I really don't know the answer, but my experience last year was negative enough that this year I eliminated the required wiki work, although I am still offering extra credit for editing Wikipedia articles. We'll see how it goes.
I checked the Vivien Leigh article and was surprised to see several images taken from films that appear to be fair use:
http://veropedia.com/a/Vivien%20Leigh
But it turns out that they are relying on the claim that screen shots from movie trailers are public domain, instead of fair use. I'm not sure, however, how reliable that claim is. In fact, it's been discussed on Wikipedia several times -- including:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_15#Image:Postman_24.jpg
TFA asks if Apple missed an opportunity and then concludes that it did not:
With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?
Heh heh...
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?ctx=g mail&hl=en&answer=12103
In this situation, you'd have to reset all your passwords, but even that would be tricky because many sites demand your old password before you set a new one.
I suppose one could use the PwdHash site's form to generate all one's hashed passwords and then store them locally in an encrypted file. But I thought one purpose of PwdHash was to make password management easier, not harder.
For those that would like to read the actual "Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works" from the Library of Congress:
The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
These exemptions will go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006 and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Before installing FF 2 on my Windows XP box I'd heard of "improvements" in tab behavior that I suspected would annoy me (e.g., "close" buttons on individual tabs instead of just one; which at least can be un-improved through about:config). However, what I didn't expect is that there would be new bugs in the tab implementation that would affect how I read Slashdot's daily "headlines" email on Gmail.
In the "old" days, when I clicked a link in the Slashdot-headlines email message, FF 1.5 opened a new window and shifted the focus to it. (Incidentally, this is also what MS IE 7 does so I presume this is the intended behavior.)
FF 2.0, in contrast, opens a new tab and shifts the focus to that tab. Each of these behaviors irritates me.
And the buggy thing about this is that in Options -> Tabs I have set "New pages should be open in..." to "A new window" (not a new tab) and UN-ticked "When I open a link in a new tab, switch to it immediately."
In FF 1.5, I could work around the focus shift with a simple ALT-tab and, moreover, separate windows fit the way I read the Slashdot headlines. Separate tabs do not.
So, in sum, as much as I love FF and prefer it over IE (and as much as I love the new spellchecking feature--which, incidentally, just marked "spellchecking" as an error), I may have to back-step to the almost-latest version.
- Is the use transformative?
- What's the nature of the copyrighted work?
- How much did you change?
- What's the effect on the market?
The full, but short, Wired piece is here:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/start.htm l?pg=13
More fair-use links are here:
http://www.screensite.org/index.php?option=com_boo kmarks&Itemid=28&mode=0&catid=5&navstart=0&search= *
Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer--even though my father and brother are.
Douglas Comer, Computer Networks and Internets with Internet Applications (fourth edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004, ISBN 0-13-143351-2.
Electronic version at:
http://netbook.cs.purdue.edu/
One thing that's kept me from using iTunes much and feelin' the love for my iPod is their previously clunky way of syncing with multiple computers. I haven't tried it in months, but last time I did the iPod did not play well with more than one computer. I wanted it to sync as smoothly and intelligently as my Palm PDA syncs my calendar app. But it didn't.
If the new iTunes has finally gotten smart about syncing multiple computers I might finally become a podhead.
I teach film/TV studies and I could see an assignment in which students create an audio version of an analysis of, say, Citizen Kane. They could talk about the film's visual and sound style right over the film itself.
I don't suppose Sharecrow (or another DVD player) allows you to program in pauses in the playback. That would make it even more useful for analytical purposes--e.g., Gregg Toland and Orson Welles helped to build interest in the use of deep focus with shots like THIS ONE. [pause]
The only problems I see with Sharecrow (and I haven't tried it yet) are the reliance upon a "directshow compatible DVD player" and the lack of any non-Windows versions. Still, I'm intrigued enough to give it a shot.
- Tivo can move recodings off the tivo onto the server.
- Tivo can talk to other tivo's in the same house and move recodings around.
- Tivo can access content on your pc for playback on your TV. (Think rip all your DVD's and never have to touch them again)
- Tivo allows you to access 3rd party applications.
- Tivo will stream internet sources and MP3's
It's a constant source of frustration to me.However, it did not stop me from (yesterday) ordering a new, HD, DirecTV TiVo. Why? As of 1 April, they're carrying four local channels in HD.
Comcast's HD DVR ostensibly does the same thing. I tried it and the HD is good, but the standard definition local channels are crap. They take them over the air (and not from the satellite) and they've never looked that good.
I'm seriously considering buying a dual-boot Mac for the sole purpose of shoring up the non-linear editing on Windows.
Even though lately I've been happy to edit video in Adobe Premiere or even Premiere Elements on WinXP, all of my DV pals use FCP. I'd love to be able to profit from their expertise by switching to FCP myself.
Too true!
Having only worked with Linux for 2 years, I'm still relatively new to it. From the start, I have found MAN pages to be very difficult to use. They're too terse and they too often rely on knowledge that a newcomer won't have.
Just as Real used to mislead users through deceptive graphics and an intentionally obscured, minimized link to its free player, Apple is doing its best to pretend the standalone version of QuickTime doesn't exist.
I've been using QuickTime for years and actually prefer it as a format for Web delivery of video, but I was considering dumping it because I too thought there was no sans iTunes option anymore.
Yahoo's new service only works with TiVo version 2. Due to copyright restrictions, DirecTiVo has never been able to be networked -- a constant source of annoyance to me.
The alliance between DirecTV and TiVo is on shaky ground anyway, because DirecTV has begun to market its own DVR. But then, these days, who doesn't? My 2-year-old son should have his DVR ready for distribution soon. He's named it after his favorite toy: FiretruckVo.
I sent them a sharply worded letter of complaint and cancellation, but a friend of mine who teaches telecommunication law recommended I go beyond that and register a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in addition to the more obvious choices of the BBB and the FCC. It seems like a good way to get AOL's attention.
Incidentally, the BBB now has a nice automated system on line for filing complaints against AOL or any other misbehaving business.
http://www.opensourcecms.com/
A very handy site that allows you to work with live demos as either an administrator or a regular user. And it's kept up to date with the latest versions of the CMS's.
"No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page."
I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of parodies of the American Humane Association's ratings. Incidentally, you can find the ratings themselves over here:
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?page name=pa_film_ratings