one downside of the comment press software I’m using on the site is that it is imperfect, it tends to disappear certain comments so that they don’t show up where they are, like yours. But this is a nice object lesson for your question. While it was easy for me to install the software and configure it to look the way I like, I cannot fix this particular bug in the software. However, this is because I am not that smart. If I were smarter, or if I got together with other wordpress+commentpress users, we could fix the bug and release a new version that works better. This is the “recursive” part of recursive publics: that one can open up layer after successive layer of detail and see how things work. This is not always the case with Web 2.0 software. I can dig only so far into Facebook or MySpace, even less into YouTube. This is why I emphasize the need to break apart these phenomena into their component practces (what exactly goes into a “web 2.0″ project? Are the practices same as or similar to Free Software? Which ones?). Only by doing that can you start to answer the question of whether Web 2.0 technologies can also create recursive publics…

ck

On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Heather Wiltse wrote:

New comment on your post #16 “Chapter 2: Protestant Reformers, Polymaths, Transhumanists”
Author : Heather Wiltse (IP: 98.223.152.111 , c-98-223-152-111.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
E-mail : hwiltse@indiana.edu
URL :
Comment:
I like the description of geeks as people who create new forms of political order that are bound up with sociotechnical systems. This seems to have some similarities to recent developments in the space generally referred to as ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘social media’, except that the level of expertise required to ‘build new things’ is now much lower. Anyone can create a blog and open up a space for social interaction, for example. And even though starting a blog is a much humbler enterprise than building an operating system, the proliferation of social media, when viewed on a larger scale, seems to collectively represent in some sense a new type of social space. Is this a fair and/or worthwhile comparison?

On the other hand, I do think that every nation, no matter how poor or ‘undemocratic’ (for whatever definition you give) has a segment of people who do have access to, and do care about free software for all the reasons I detail in the book. And I do make a strong claim that cultural differences of a conventional sort (language, history, class, race, etc.) are not the differences that make a difference. Or to put it differently, the fact that people find each other through the internet and free software (and all the practices and norms and tools that entails) is a more significant feature of their filiation than anything else. That is their culture, and the culture that matters to them. I’ve met, corresponded with, or can think of examples of such hackers from just about everywhere. Notable (and predictable) exceptions are: Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Greenland and various pacific island nations may also be exceptions, but that’s not really your point I think…

This is a good question, but requires that you know something about how copyright law normally works to understand it.

If I had put the site and book online without the CC-BY-NC license on it (i.e. relying only on the full power of copyright), you would have no rights whatsover to do anything with it. Arguably, you would only barely have the right to read it, since in doing so you would be making an unauthorized copy. You would certainly have no right to re-distribute it, change it, or remix it, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes.

So the CC license gives you the right to do that, and yes, it does that subject to certain restrictions– that you attribute the source work to me (though you would own the copyright on the modified work), and that you refrain from competing with Duke. You retain your “fair use” rights (which generally covers the right to cite a work in another context) regardless of whether there is a license or not… but fair use is a tricky and limited doctrine… it should cover more than just citation, and in some ways the CC license is just a clear and explicit legal green light to you to exercise, at minimum, your fair use rights.

A more radical gesture would be to dedicate the book and the writings here to the public domain, which would in principle mean that you could do whatever you want with it, no restrictions.

However, and this was one reason Creative Cmmons was created, US legal doctrine has no specific rules about when something is in the public domain, and so even if I say “This is in the public domain” it isn’t necessarily legally valid. If I were evil i could turn on you… after you used my work I could say “no, no, I didn’t really mean it, I own the copyright” and I would probably win in court. So, CC is necessary in order to legally defend my right to share this work… otherwise the law forces me to keep it to myself.

I’m taking a graduate class (“Global Internet”) at the American U. of Paris, and our assignment for Tuesday is the Intro and Chapter 8 of your book to read, along with reviewing your site, as well at the GNU Manifesto.

Each week we post our comments on our course message board and discuss them in class. In my comments I wrote that the GNU Manifesto brings up the issue of sharing and how this is accomplised. In Chapter 8, I found similarities here, where instead of the idea of sharing, you use the word coding. You write about who has access to the code, who can modify it, and under what conditions. The advent of the Creative Commons Attribution provides access to anyone who wishes to engage interactively with others’ works. (These are watered down versions of what I wrote.)

I understand the purpose of Two Bits, and the thesis behind the other assignments, however, I found a fundamental problem with the idea of “sharing” as promoted here. At the bottom of your About page there is a link “Material on this site released under a Creative Commons By-NC-SA 3.0 License. On this page, you are encouraged to “share” and “remix” the work, but only if you “attribute” it, and that the work you create is “noncommercial” and “shared alike.”

I understand that there is the element that you can change a text, but you still have to refer back to the original and as the Two Bits site indicates, leave the author’s name on the work. Given this then, how is the Creative Commons Attribution basically any different than citing a work that you write about? Also, who has the right to be writing about things that they may not have official training in? I found that to allow this would undermine the work that individuals have accomplished in order to receive the title, and the right, to be circulating information (based on their acquired knowledge/diplomas) in published works.

Looking forward to a possible response!

Best regards,

Charlotte
AUP, Global Communications 2009

one downside of the comment press software I’m using on the site is that it is imperfect, it tends to disappear certain comments so that they don’t show up where they are, like yours. But this is a nice object lesson for your question. While it was easy for me to install the software and configure it to look the way I like, I cannot fix this particular bug in the software. However, this is because I am not that smart. If I were smarter, or if I got together with other wordpress+commentpress users, we could fix the bug and release a new version that works better. This is the “recursive” part of recursive publics: that one can open up layer after successive layer of detail and see how things work. This is not always the case with Web 2.0 software. I can dig only so far into Facebook or MySpace, even less into YouTube. This is why I emphasize the need to break apart these phenomena into their component practces (what exactly goes into a “web 2.0″ project? Are the practices same as or similar to Free Software? Which ones?). Only by doing that can you start to answer the question of whether Web 2.0 technologies can also create recursive publics…

ck

On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Heather Wiltse wrote:

New comment on your post #16 “Chapter 2: Protestant Reformers, Polymaths, Transhumanists”
Author : Heather Wiltse (IP: 98.223.152.111 , c-98-223-152-111.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
E-mail : hwiltse@indiana.edu
URL :
Comment:
I like the description of geeks as people who create new forms of political order that are bound up with sociotechnical systems. This seems to have some similarities to recent developments in the space generally referred to as ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘social media’, except that the level of expertise required to ‘build new things’ is now much lower. Anyone can create a blog and open up a space for social interaction, for example. And even though starting a blog is a much humbler enterprise than building an operating system, the proliferation of social media, when viewed on a larger scale, seems to collectively represent in some sense a new type of social space. Is this a fair and/or worthwhile comparison?