Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges

Tue, Apr 19th 2011 8:31am

Filed Under:
al jolson, collaboration, jay-z, music, sugar hill gang

Music Is Collaborative: Jay-Z To Sugar Hill Gang To Al Jolson And Back Again

from the wonderful dept

Toney Rome contacted us to point our attention to a 14-minute video he put together, showing how music is collaborative. He claims this is episode one, so it'll be interesting to see if there will be more. He noted that he was inspired to put this video together after reading James Boyle's The Public Domain, which he first heard about when we mentioned it on Techdirt. I have to imagine that much of this video was inspired by Chapter 6, which traces a variety of songs related to Kanye West and Ray Charles. Instead of Kanye West, this video starts with Jay-Z: While a few bits of the video seem extraneous and probably could be done without, what the video does nicely is track how even modern "original" music is very, very collaborative when you start to dig into the details. It talks about Jay-Z's Empire State of Mind, a song that has been redone hundreds of times, and notes how the underlying music loop is from The Moment's song Love on a Two-Way Street -- and how that song was written by Sylvia Robinson and two others (and how it also was covered and sampled a few other times before). Robinson, beyond being a recording artist, started Sugar Hill Records, and went on to put together the Sugar Hill Gang... who put out the first rap single to go gold: Rapper's Delight. That song, of course, was based on an (originally uncleared) sample of the classic disco song Good Times by the band Chic. The video has two clips of one of the songwriters of Good Times. In the first one, he talks about how his music was "sacred" and how annoyed he was to hear it sampled on Rapper's Delight without permission (eventually the two parties settled...). In the second clip, however, the same guy talks about how Good Times was actually pulling from Milton Alger's Happy Days Are Here Again and About a Quarter to Nine by Al Jolson. In other words... that song that was so "sacred" was built off of the works of others.

There's a lot more in the video, including a variety of other interesting tangents, including the fact that one of the lyrics from Rapper's Delight copied a lyric from another rapper so directly that it includes that rapper's name in the lyric. The video concludes with a great line:

Many musicians like to believe that they created their art by themselves, but most likely, it was collaboration.

13 Comments

Insight Community

Mon, Sep 27th 2010 5:18pm

Filed Under:
collaboration, insight community, insights, whitepaper

Closed: 30 Sep 2010, 11:59PM PT

Earn up to $200 for Insights on this case.

Download the whitepaper here.

packaged

Rethinking Collaboration Software

We posted this Insight Community case a few weeks back, but wanted to repost it since time is running out on it. Once again, if you're unaware, the Insight Community is a way for companies to seek out insight and analysis from members of the Techdirt community. If you're a registered Techdirt user, then you're also a member of the Insight Community and are free to take part in this discussion. The top results can earn cash rewards, so this is a nice way to make some money for being smart.

Enterprise 2.0 has been a catch-all description for the shift towards better collaborative software tools that help groups communicate in real time to increase employee productivity. As part of this movement, IBM sees a progression away from a world centered on emails using Microsoft Word and Outlook.

Supporting this idea, IBM has a whitepaper entitled: "Collaboration 2.0 -- Taking Collaboration to the Next Level: From the E-mail and Document-centric World of 'Enterprise 1.0' to the People-centric World of Enterprise 2.0". Register to read it, and IBM would like your feedback on it.

Interesting critiques of this whitepaper include, but are not limited to, questions such as:

How can this whitepaper target its audience better?
What specific business communities would benefit most from employing Collaboration 2.0 tools?
How could this whitepaper be improved? What points could be added?
Given the recent demise of Google Wave, what lessons can be learned for collaboration software providers?

The type of insights we're looking for will generate useful discussions regarding the capabilities of collaboration tools. You can also tell us about your experiences using collaboration tools (what you like or don't like about them). Additionally, you can help us out by sharing this whitepaper with others and aggregating feedback on it. Ultimately, we're interested in creating an interesting collection of opinions (and factoids) for folks who might be evaluating various online collaboration apps. We may re-print your submissions as blog posts on other websites, and your insightful aphorisms may be quoted in future publications.

The topic of this Insight Community case is sponsored by IBM. Of course, the content of this case consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author(s) and not of IBM.

14 Insights

View Case

Insight Community

Thu, Aug 19th 2010 4:40pm

Filed Under:
collaboration, insight community, insights, whitepaper

Companies:
ibm

Closed: 30 Sep 2010, 11:59PM PT

Earn up to $200 for Insights on this case.

Download the whitepaper here.

packaged

Everyone Offers Collaboration Software, But Who Really Needs It?

If you're unfamiliar with how our Insight Community works, companies use it to get insight and analysis from folks here in the Techdirt community. If you're a registered Techdirt user, then you're also a member of the Insight Community and are free to take part in this discussion. The top results can earn cash rewards, so this is a nice way to make some money for being smart.

Interesting critiques of this whitepaper include, but are not limited to, questions such as:

How can this whitepaper target its audience better?
What specific business communities would benefit most from employing Collaboration 2.0 tools?
How could this whitepaper be improved? What points could be added?
Given the recent demise of Google Wave, what lessons can be learned for collaboration software providers?

The topic of this Insight Community case is sponsored by IBM. Of course, the content of this case consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author(s) and not of IBM.

14 Insights

View Case

Fri, Feb 12th 2010 6:44pm

Filed Under:
airen, books, collaboration, copyright, helen hegemann, plagiarism, remix, writing

Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It

from the collaborative-writing dept

Here's a story that will get traditionalists up in arms about "stealing" and "laziness," but they'll all be missing the point. We've see for decades how remix culture works in music. The ability to take the works of someone else, mix them up with others, change them around and create something new and powerful, is a wonderful expression of culture, that shows how artistic culture is often about shared experiences and sharing works of art. But what about in the literary world?

There has been some exploration of this concept in the past, such as when author Jonathan Lethem wrote a very eloquent defense of plagiarism that was entirely plagiarized. Separately, we've discussed how many (especially younger people) who have grown up on things like Wikipedia often point out that they don't view it as plagiarism so much as collaborative writing. And they have a point (even if there's one patent lawyer in particular who links back to that article every few weeks to mock Techdirt). There will always be those who don't recognize how this is, in fact, collaboration and does create new and unique pieces of artwork and culture -- but they're the same sorts of people who have decried every new artform from the Waltz ("The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced... we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion") to romance novels and plays ("The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge") to comic books ("All child drug addicts, and all children drawn into the narcotics traffic as messengers, with whom we have had contact, were inveterate comic-book readers This kind of thing is not good mental nourishment for children!").

But the good news is that this form of collaborative creation is gaining a bit of acceptance. Duane alerts us to the story of a 17-year-old German woman whose critically acclaimed book has been found to have large chunks plagiarized from other sources. A few years back, when a similar situation arose in the US, the author Kaavya Viswanathan, was shunned -- even if some of us thought that was ridiculous and unfair. In this case, however, the author, Helene Hegemann, readily admits that she was "remixing" other works into her book -- and the critics still love it. Her book was nominated for the $20,000 prize of the Leipzig Book Fair even though the judges already knew about the plagiarism.

And, really, what's the problem here? Some might claim that it's unfair to the original authors whose work she used -- but the author of the largest segments, named Airen, is getting a ton of attention for Airen's own book, which received little actual attention when originally published. In fact, Amazon now notes that "customers who bought" Hegemann's book also ended up buying Airen's book. In the same way that remixes and mashups often drive people to buy the original music, it seems like remixed/mashedup books can do the same. It may be a big cultural leap for those who think there is "a way things must be done," but it seems that the younger generation has other ideas.

64 Comments

Thu, Aug 6th 2009 2:40pm

Filed Under:
collaboration, fair use, national portrait gallery, public domain, smithsonian

Compare The Smithsonian To London's National Gallery When It Comes To Public Domain Images

from the one-way-or-the-other dept

As noted here recently, London's National Portrait Gallery is involved in a legal tiff concerning whether the photos it put online of public domain portraits are public domain themselves. The Gallery insists they are not, and wants to prevent others from using them. However, jump across to this side of the pond and compare that response to what the Smithsonian is now saying, concerning its plan to get content more freely available and shared:

Content Usage: Establish a pan-Institutional policy for sharing and using the Smithsonian's digital content, with particular focus on Copyright and Public Domain policies that encourage the appropriate re-use and sharing of Smithsonian resources.

That sounds a lot better, and more in-tune with the mission of such a museum. To be fair, a few years back, the Smithsonian had its own troubles claiming copyright over public domain images, so perhaps it just takes a bit of time for these things to sink in.

9 Comments

Tue, Jul 28th 2009 1:46pm

Filed Under:
collaboration, game theory, innovation, netflix prize

Companies:
netflix

What The Netflix Prize Tells Us About Innovation, Collaboration, Info Sharing And Game Theory

from the fascinating! dept

While there's lots of attention being paid to the fact that some team has won the Netflix Prize (it probably won't be announced who until September), there's an interesting side story that's worth noting -- which is how important collaboration was in breaking through. Plenty of studies have shown that innovation happens much faster when you have the free and open sharing of information (rather than having it locked up, say, by patents), as that mixture of different approaches and ideas allows for breakthroughs to come much faster (in fact, studies have shown that much of the success in Silicon Valley came from the free sharing of info across companies as people rapidly moved around).

And, in fact, that's exactly what happened with the Netflix Prize. The first "team" to break the 10% finish line, BellKor, was actually a merger of a few separate teams, allowing them to combine different pieces of different approaches to actually leap ahead. So, rather than trying to hoard the idea for themselves to claim the entire prize themselves, they realized it was better to team up to make the real breakthrough.

But, then a second interesting thing happened. Since the rules allowed another 30 days for other teams to offer up solutions that beat the first one, a bunch of other teams realized that it was in their best interest to team up as well, in order to leap-frog the original team. So they created the aptly named Ensemble -- and, again, the merger of various teams and different approaches allowed them to jump forward. It's not clear who actually had the best solution (both teams claim they did), but it's nice to see yet another clear example of the value of collaboration in innovation, against the standard myth of the lone inventor having a "flash of genius." It's also interesting to see the game theory aspect of the "loser teams" recognizing that they had to team up in order to catch up with the leader in the space.

34 Comments

Studies

Tue, Jul 21st 2009 8:22am

Filed Under:
cheating, collaboration

Is It Cheating Or Is It Collaboration?

from the sounds-like-collaboration dept

A few years back, we had an interesting discussion around the idea that many students might not view using modern technology to share answers as "cheating" so much as they would view it as wikipedia-like collaboration. I thought this was an interesting observation, since I'd never really thought of it that way. Someone who ought to remain anonymous alerts me to a discussion of a recent study on student "cheating" on exams via mobile phones and similar technology, which found, not only that lots of kids do it, but that they don't think it's wrong. In the comments to that post, there's a fascinating comment by Ryan Scott that again highlights the point about collaboration:

The premise of memorization is the problem here. What's far more important than memorizing some formulas is knowing where to find them and how to apply them.

In NO industry is collaboration considered cheating. Only in SCHOOL is this a problem. What are we teaching our kids?

I'm an employer. I want my employees reaching out and building networks of people that can help them. I struggle with this whole 'that's cheating' attitude. It's something I need to UNTEACH my employees. It does NOT matter to me if you know how to do something, it matters to me that you can figure out how to do it. Most businesses, especially information based, need employees who know how to find and apply information, not that have a repository of facts in their heads. We are creating everything new -- NO ONE knows how to do the things many companies deal with on a daily basis unless you are a clerk of some kind. We are figuring it all out on the fly. Building alliances, search skills, knowing where and how to find information -- all these are what's valuable.

The argument that school, memorization, and solitary work teaches you how to think is absolutely wrong. If we really want to teach people how to think, we should have a class called How To Think, not Ancient Greek History. You don't teach thinking skills by forcing 30 people to memorize the same names, dates, and events. You do it by teaching principles, and by teaching directly the actual skills the education system claims to want to create.

We need more 'How to Think', 'How to Collaborate', 'How to Negotiate', 'How to Resolve Conflict' and less 'Memorize a bunch of stuff for a test'

Plagiarism is an exception. Passing off someone else's work as your own is clearly wrong. But forcing kids to memorize facts and not giving them what's truly important -- that is to say thinking skills is the big problem here.

Thinking about plagiarism some more. I'm always telling my employees to research before writing -- cobble together a collection of other people's work and give me an opinion. Build on whats already out there, don't start from scratch.

Well said. Again, I don't think that "cheating" is the problem here. The problem is this focus on not teaching people how to work together to solve problems and assuming that everything needs to be done by the individual themselves. That's not how things work in the real world, and it does children a disservice to downplay collaboration and reinforce the idea that building off the works of others is somehow wrong. Standing on the shoulders of giants is important, or we're always reinventing the wheel.

91 Comments

Thu, Mar 5th 2009 1:09pm

Filed Under:
bruce houghton, business models, collaboration, midem, music, optimism, ted cohen

Recording Industry, Once Again, Stomps Out Optimism

from the it's-what-they-do-best dept

My initial summary of my trip to the Midem music industry event in January was that it was about turning "optimism into denial." There was a tremendous sense of optimism from all sorts of upstarts: musicians and companies who were really innovating and creating wonderful success stories over and over again. And then... the old school industry guys showed up. They spoke about the optimism and the success stories... and said a few things that made it sound like the got it. They talked about ending this "war" with consumers, and focusing on solutions that worked. But, then the clouds would descend, and they'd immediately start angrily saying that even with these great new business models and innovations, "we need to stomp out piracy." In doing so, they demonstrated how severely they missed the point -- and it's now showing in their actions. We've been seeing more braindead maneuvers over the last month with highly questionable lawsuits, and licensing decisions that only serve to piss off users.

It seems that my initial read is (unfortunately) the same conclusion others are coming to as well. Two of the "industry insiders" I got to meet at the event -- who both came down on the "optimistic" side at the event have each written up blog posts for the MidemNet blog, complaining about the very same thing. That initial sense of optimism that was seen at the event has pretty much gone away -- crushed by dumb moves within the industry. Ted Cohen, who helped moderate much of the event, diplomatically points out that for all the talk of collaboration at the event, the chaos isn't over, and he wonders when we'll actually get down to business. Meanwhile, Bruce Houghton (of the excellent Hypebot blog) more specifically fears that all the talk of a more collaborative approach was nothing more than talk -- and there is no intention to really collaborate.

This is a pretty big problem -- and I obviously won't speak for either Bruce or Ted, who I'm pretty sure would disagree with this assessment -- but, it won't change until the old system and the old structures and the "old guard" are finally pushed out. There are tons of success stories -- but those are in spite of the industry, not because of it. It's time to wipe out the house of cards that the industry has built in terms of Rube Goldbergian copyright licensing schemes, and start fresh. There are business models that work great for everyone -- but the current system is designed to allow bystanders and middlemen to profit at the expense of the musicians and the public. Get rid of the old system, and everyone but those middlemen will benefit.

27 Comments

Overhype

Thu, Mar 6th 2008 1:44pm

Filed Under:
cheating, collaboration, college, facebook, online, ryerson university, study groups