W2-1. About someone using that result of collective intelligence for commercial / Dayoung Ryu, 류다영


If a result of collective intelligence is free, what do you think about someone using that result of collective intelligence for commercial?




After we watch the lecture video of ‘Why Wikipedia?’, we all know that Wikipedia is free for everyone. I think the reason how Wikipedia can collect intelligence for free is Wikipedia is supported by Wikimedia Foundation, which is NPO. However, what if there is a group does not have any support foundation?

I have thought about this question long time. Nowadays, there are a lot of groups made by only few people to publish, spread, and share their good ideas and ideologies. Let’s says this kind of group named ‘GOOD’.

The members of ‘GOOD’ are only four, and they have a nice idea. They try to share this idea with more people, so they make a web page and upload about the idea. People find the web-page of ‘GOOD’. People communicate and develop about the idea. One day, ‘GOOD’ hear a new that a famous company makes something related to ‘GOOD’s idea.

You may say it is quite fair, because ‘GOOD’ just shared only some ideas but the company made it in the reality. But think like this; if ‘GOOD’ idea is a new computer language and the company copy that new language (include more information and developed idea on the website of ‘GOOD’) with little of transformed and insists their copyright, what can ‘GOOD’ do?

In 2005, Google has lost a case against JAVA(Oracle). Because Google has used JAVA language to make Google’s own virtual machine, called ‘Dalvik virtual machine.’ In 2010, Oracle sued Google. Oracle claimed that Google Infringed copyright of JAVA. Oracle won and required more about 8.8 billion dollars for compensation.

In this case, Oracle has the copyright and Wikipedia also has its own foundation, what about small groups working for collective intelligence? How can we protect them?

Comments

  1. AnonymousMarch 27, 2020 at 7:45 AM

    Yeah, the hard part of the copyright. I think the most clear way to prevent future trouble with current copyright law is to register its copyright as soon as possible.

    In case of collective intelligence product, we should register its copyright as work of joint authorship, which means no one can distinguish how much certain individual contributed to the result. To do so, all the people, in case of 'GOOD' the four member need to agree and register the copyright.

    But even thought they forgot, or didn't think that the idea would be so fascinating that a big company would copy it, because they shared that talk on the internet, they have a record when they shared that conversation. So, if the Committee of Copyright would find much common feature in both work, they will be likely to take the side of the earlier one. If it was not a talk shared in the internet, this kind of work process would be impossible.

    So, I think, or hope, even though it is just a imagination, members of 'GOOD' and the people who participated in the topic would probably get a happy ending in the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 27, 2020 at 7:47 AM

      Btw, I want to think about this question as an extra, but I can't find which video it belongs. Can you tell me if it's OK with you?

      Delete
    2. Dayoung Ryu 류다영March 28, 2020 at 10:23 PM

      I'm really glad you want to think more about this question. I'm looking for a good video to explain about copyright of collective intelligence, but still there is only about 'What is collective intelligence and how we deal it'. I found a thesis about this topic (and this is Korean!). I link here: http://www.riss.kr.access.hanyang.ac.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=1a0202e37d52c72d&control_no=072b215d0d4b58e3e9810257f7042666
      I hundred percent of sure that you can read it through RISS linked on our library web page (학술정보관).

      I think still we don't have a specific solution about collective intelligence copyright because we are in progress. This means we are in development step. If collective intelligence becomes a basic philosophy of this era, the solution of copyright must be appeared.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 29, 2020 at 2:13 AM

      You found me an document that I could use it as the reference! Thank you so much. But I think you misunderstood my question a bit. Maybe it's because I wrote it kind of awkward. What I meant was: in which video of Professor Piotr -like 'what is Wikipedia' or 'why Wikipedia'- have you found this question [If a result of collective intelligence is free, what do you think about someone using that result of collective intelligence for commercial?] that you wrote as your blog assignment topic. :) It wasn't my intention to pester you on the weekend by making you find reference documents or videos for me. But again, thank you so much for doing so. I really do appreciate it. Have a nice weekend!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WK 5.2 The Benevolent Dictator - Hanane Ben Abdeslam

In the reading it starts with the example of a “Neo-Nazi” dictator, it didn’t say when it exactly happened but I think it was during World War I and II. This dictator just did what he wanted to do, locking articles down, ban people, and protecting their own reputation and integrity. Actually, for someone to have that much power by a community founder is not unique to Wikipedia. Such leaders are often found in a project around, which a community develops, or otherwise emerge from a leaderless context by way of merit. However, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy, nor a monarchy. Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior. This means that leadership emerges through action rather than appointment. The prominent leader of an open content community is sometimes characterizing as a benevolent dictator. This is a variation on a t...
Read more

W2. What is Wikipedia - Seungju Lee

Summary Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia as an collaboration project. It isn't made by one people. Anyone can write and share information. It is maintained by non profit organizations. It is the largest and most popular  general reference work on the World Wide Web, and is one of the 20 most popular websites. Diverse information can be found in encyclopedia. Interesting point Wikipedia is made by group. All people in group can share their own information. Not only expert, but also anyone who have interest in topic, they can participate in make dictionary. I had a negative opinion about this in past, because this can affect on accuracy of information. But, after I realized that  this is "collaboration" project, many people can give a feedback to writers who post wrong information. So I could change my mind that that kind of feedback make good circulation on advance of wikipedia. And also it is collaboration project,  so I think variety of informat...
Read more

W7. Good Faith Collaboration / Kim Seon Woo

Summary   Wikipedia's culture includes the topics of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. The 2010 book. This book was first published on August 27, 2010 through MIT Press and has a preface to Lawrence Lessig.   This book is an ethnographic study of Wikipedia's history, practical and theoretical pioneers, and culture, including consensus and collaboration practices. This book is described as a pioneering ethnographic study of Wikipedia culture. Reagle's main paper was summed up with the claim that "Wikipedia's success may be less technical than the results of Wikipedia's community and their cultural norms." Interesting Point It is interesting to discuss Wikipedia's fundamental principle of operation, 'cooperation'. Wikipedia, which can be seen as an integral part of modern technology, would not be possible without cooperation. Discussion Does Wikipedia only have cooperation? How should conflict ...
Read more