ENG 480 IP Readings

Let me just start by saying I love the Creative Commons comic strips (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1, and http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/how1). I thought it was a very clever way of sharing the information and keeping readers interested. They were very readable and made the whole process of copywriting online works seem so simple. It seriously took my less than a minute to go to the Creative Commons site and get a license for my blog. It was almost too easy. So much so that I'm afraid I did it wrong or missed something. But hopefully I did it correctly and it's just an example of how easy technology is making things these days. I always thought you had to pay something to get something copyrighted. Does anyone know if copyrighting is free all the time or just for the Internet? Like if I wrote a book, would the copyright come free? Just wondering.

So, after reading about Creative Commons I thought it was a pretty cool system, even though I know nothing about copyright law or anything like that. I took a few seconds to add a CC tag to my blog and moved on. When I read our last assigned article by Dvorak I began to question though and even thought about removing the tag in case it was worthless and showed my ignorance about copyrighting. I decided to wait until we discussed it in class though to see what people are thinking about this. Dvorak was very sarcastic in his article, which I enjoy, and seemed to know what he was talking about. Is creative commons really needed? Even if it's not, I think it's a convenient way for people to express to others how they would like their content to be used and spread. Or maybe it's all nonsense like Dvorak states.

I found the Open Source site interesting as well, though not quite so entertaining. I did find a few dorky lines like:
"Developers call their anti-restrictive use of copyright copyleft."
I feel like these smart people should be able to come up with something more clever. Anyway, I think the open source stuff can be connected with the networking stuff we were talking about last week, in that it's an example of how programs/software/hardware can be improved by getting feedback from the communities that use them. I thought the article made good points on the way the acedemic research model has both simular and different aspects of the open source model and about how journals should be published electronically to save money and make them easier to use in research. Everyone's using the internet to research these days anyway so besides being cheaper and more accessable, it's just more convenient. I also could relate to the discussion about how composition classes are simular to the open source method. In my experience, writing classes where we use peer editing and the multi-draft process are the ones where I write my best papers. They're also the ones that I work hardest in though and get more nervous about. For some reason it's tougher to write for my peers and for many people than for just one person who grades it. Even though it's more work and I worry about it more, I have to admit that feedback and input from peers does have a positive effect on my writing, which is the whole point. I was very familiar with the "assembly line" projects the article talks about that groups do. I agree that it keeps each member of the group from fully knowing all the information, but with schedule and personality conflicts, it's almost always the easiest way to go. I thought it was cool that our own Prof. Dilger was mentioned in the article and I see alot of ways he has implemented open source stuff into our Eng480 class, including the class wiki, our blogs, and our first assignment. I'm really not used to the open-source method in classes so it's taking me awhile to adjust, but through these articles I can see how it could lead to a greater learning experience.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts on the readings for the week.