text:
User talk:Browneagle.44

Welcome to Wikiversity! You may want to use { {subst:contrib-creator}}. --Draicone (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that! I'm still getting used to the formatting and tagging. Browneagle.44 18:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It can take a while to get used to - let me know if you need a hand with anything. By the way, please use four tildes to sign your comments so that other people can follow the discussion. You can do a lot with your signature - see Signature for more details. I've also included our standard welcome template below, which you may find useful in getting started with Wikiversity. --Draicone (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Hello Browneagle.44, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Draicone (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Browneagle.44


text:
User:S.emp/Week 5, tutoral 2

=Week 5, Tutorial 2=

Sadly this week I was feeling unwell :( so I was unable to make it to class. As a result I had to find the motivation to do this by myself.

I have learnt about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs numerous times, about how a person's basic needs start from the bottom of the pyramid and throughout a person's life they try and work their way up the pyramid, with only a few people being able to achieve self-actualization, however, I have never thought about the weaknesses of the model. I was only able to come up with a few weaknesses.

 * Maslow states that for a person to reach self-actualization, they must first satisfy their physiological, safety, belonging and esteem needs. However, it could be argued that some people can reach some form of self-actualisation without satisfying all of the other needs, for example, many of our best artists and authors, for example, suffered from poverty, bad upbringing, neuroses, and depression, such as Van Gogh, who was poor and arguably mentally ill. Therefore, it could be argued that we don't have to necessarily have satisfied all the needs below to move up to higher needs.

 * A person could go down the pyramid. For example, a person could be at the stage belonging and lose their house and therefore, they would have to satisfy their safety needs again.

 * It does not take into consideration other cultures and the different values that they may place on certain needs such a food.

In regards to my text-book chapter I have not got very far with it so far. Below it a very basic outline of my main headings.

 * Introduction
 * Definition
 * The prevalence of adultery
 * Gender differences
 * Satisfaction
 * Opportunity
 * children
 * Education
 * Length of marriage
 * Conclusion

I will also have a quiz and a glossary. I find glossary's really helpful in text-books, as I am able to quickly find the definition for something without having to read numerious pages.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:S.emp/Week 5, tutoral 2


text:
User talk:Trijnstel

Welcome
 Hello Trijnstel, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mohamed Ouda
Thanks for the heads up on this page. --Draicone (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Trijnstel 17:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your speedy deletion tag on Hunter Mariner. I'd blocked the account and I thought I'd looked for all created pages, this was one of a family of "users" with Hunter Mariner in the name, but I'd obviously missed this page until I reviewed the deletion category. Your work is seen and appreciated. Thanks. --Abd 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. All accounts are globally locked on my request. See here for some of the sockpuppets. Recently (5 September) the following accounts were globally locked:
 * Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI
FYI: They are my family members. They support me. I do not commit sockpuppetry. --Draubb (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask you two things: 1 - why did one of them say he/she was your friend, not family member, and 2 - it would still be meatpuppetry; it's improper to canvass friends or family members to support something on a Wikimedia wiki and is highly frowned upon. It's hard to believe this because they also match you behavior-wise, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically they match with you. There is nothing more I can say about that. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I do not have experience.
You know what! Jasper Deng and Titodutta are right. I do not have any experience. I am sorry to everyone. I am so sorry!. --Draubb (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Sorry - I did not know what meatpuppetry is. Oh man I (Draubb) is stupid, I just did meatpuppetry. I am sorry, please help me Trijnstel. I do not want to be blocked for an accident. Please help me Trijnstel. I am so sorry. --Draubb (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't do anything. That's up to the local admins. I only informed them about this very fact. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stewards' request
Hi, I had to call on a steward like you because the Korean steward who globally blocked my account doesn't want to listen to what I had to say and I'm afraid he could globally blocked my IP address too.

I'm an Italian user. I think you already know about the noted Polish LTA "Wikinɡer", don't you? Well, he's currently vandalizing also it.wikipedia. He's been vandalizing pages and talk pages about robots since over a year. He both uses open proxies and sockpuppets to do so, which are always blocked short after the vandalisms. About one year ago I registered an account, JoyBiII, in order to help Italian sysops figthing him. I've always been logging in using my Italian Internet connection, which provides 2 IP ranges, 5.170.0.0/16 and 5.171.0.0/16. I'm sure you have the tools to check my recent logs and verify what I've just said. I've never been logging in from proxies or from a Polish IP address.

Two weeks ago I was reverting Wikinɡer in it.wikipedia as usual, because after months of absence he decided to come back some weeks ago. Can you guess what happened? The steward I've talked about above, -revi, has globaly blocked my account because... I'm Wikinɡer! I couldn't believe it when I read the reason. He's even a steward and a checkuser in login.wikimedia, and he didn't even check before doing it. There was also an Italian sysop who committed the same mistake and blockd my account in it.wikipedia without listening to what I had to say about that, but last year I've already been speaking with other Italian sysops who acknowledged my good faith and my deniability, they could talk to him and make him understand he just mistook me for Wikinɡer. However, as long as my global account is blocked that would be useless.

I'd like to ask you to please check that my account JoyBiII has nothing to do with Wikinɡer, with his proxies and his socks, even if he registered also a few socks with a name similar to mine, that is JoyBiil, JoyBiiII and JoyByll. Please, verify my innocente and unblock my account, that -revi should be told to pay more attention when he globally blocks somebody because he may make mistakes as he did in this case.

Thank you! 5.170.44.9 (discuss) 08:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that there is some truth in this statement? Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Decided to leave it to other stewards. See also s:en:User talk:Green Giant. Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trijnstel


text:
Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Ottava Rima

Should we [ keep or delete] the text copied over from User:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima. I think it is unnecessary to keep because most if not all of it is a duplicate of whats already been discussed elsewhere in the review and at User talk:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima, the copied sections at this review have had zero responses, and discussion should be focused in one place. -- dark lama  16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep. Those sections are, in some cases, the only ones with detailed evidence about some of the charges. I have started adding diffs where they were missing, but my time is short right now, I don't know how far I'll get and how quickly. I stopped developing this because the community had ample evidence of incivility in recent traffic, it was hard to miss!, and because Ottava appeared to resign, which did not actually happen, since he is now attempting at meta to get the tools back. Bummer. He'll fail, there, They Do Not Do That when a site has active 'crats, but, it's all more mess.

 * Changing the section headers breaks all references to them from history. Bad idea unless necessary. However, unused sections could indeed be collapsed. Better than removal.

 * I wish SBJ had been a little more patient, because the original CR design would have, indeed, if the community cooperated reasonably, channeled discussion into first considering evidence and only *then* making proposals when the evidence was considered done. I agree with Ottava that proceeding to a !vote on a conclusion without first having what ArbComm calls "findings of fact" is not a great idea.

 * On the other hand, SBJ apparently felt immediately motivated to get it over with; Ottava was rampantly uncivil, like nothing I'd seen before, all the restraints popped, and this kind of incivility turns people off when they see it, and they do not necessarily easily figure out who is behind it, they will assume that, if it is tolerated, it's a Bad Place, and, indeed, one of the long-term problems is that anyone who confronts incivility is easily seen as ... uncivil! They aren't being "nice." So communities tend to shoot the messenger, and I've seen this in way over twenty years of on-line community experience.

 * But that is not really relevant to the conclusion here. It was obvious, blatant, not reversible without Ottava turning over a new leaf, unfortunately. --Abd 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it's better to keep it in one place. --SB_Johnny talk 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the section headers should be changed since this is more of a "public" community review rather than Abd's little subpage (which we grant some leeway to since it is in userspace) and thus these headers must adhere to w:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. We should take out some of the unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, and then fix the links from history later. TeleComNasSprVen 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * . I only undid your edit because it removed a large section (11k+) with an edit comment that did not explain that, and the section you removed is under discussion here. I'm perfectly happy with changing headers if it's reasonable and an an improvement. --SB_Johnny talk 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh good gravy! Sorry TC, but that was actually a browser problem on my end. You didn't remove 11kb, so I was probably seeing darklama's edit all over again. --SB_Johnny talk 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing was kind of ripped out of context by SBJ. The intention was to break the Community Review down to a specific series of charges or issues, and each issue has a presenter. The presenter puts up the charge ("Summary") and an evidence section and the respondent has privileged position to respond. Then others may also make comments in their own sections. These are not threaded sections. Then there are comment sections that would be threaded discussion. And then sections designed for use after discussion to propose findings and remedies. Kind of a mini ArbComm structure. User RfCs on Wikipedia also follow something similar, with privileged sections that nobody else edits. These, when the structure is respected, are the sanest places on Wikipedia. Which isn't saying much..., That the names were in the sections was a more structured form of "Comment by SoAndSo" in those Wikipedia processes. I've noticed many times that when simple section names are used, like "Comment," then if there are multiple sections gathering comment, one cannot tell from the edit summary what section was edited. I was trying to set up something that would be, in fact, easier to use, though it looked more complicated at first. Fewer edit conflicts. Etc.

TCNSV, the summary of a charge is a decision for the one presenting the charge! If a section has been edited, changing the headers confuses the history and access. There should be a good reason. Not a terrible problem at this point. But the whole division into summary and evidence sections has been lost. I'll review it, but having someone edit my presentation of charges and evidence, removing and assigning headings, strikes me as a bit iffy. If we had clerks tasked to do this neutrally and helpfully, not a terrible idea, but how something is headed can affect how it is read. Every detail of those headers was there for a reason, I worked on it for a while. --Abd 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring over my sections?
Two editors changed the headers and presentation of my summaries and evidence. This is a Community Review, and courtesy is generally extended to authors of charges in a review to present those charges as they choose. Charges are not necessarily neutral. POV is being asserted, sometimes, in claims, claims can be opinions, can even be biased. Refactoring discussions in a situation like this is an intrusion on author rights (not legal rights, this isn't about license, but about rights to present evidence and argument as the author chooses, not as someone who might not have the same intentions chooses.

When I saw SBJ's first revert, I had been about to revert the prior edit myself. It was way too much to change without prior discussion, and.... nobody asked me. Now, I see that there was some insistent editing going on here. Stop it! First of all, let me defend my own section, SBJ. I would not revert war over it, myself, rather I'd ask for custodian action to prevent improper editing of my material, if someone will not let me present that material as I choose. Let me decide if that's needed, though I appreciate -- very much -- your intentions.

I'm concerned that we may have some new participants here who do not understand much about Wikiversity traditions. In any case, I will review the material tomorrow, I hope, and may rewrite that whole section, setting up space for comment, etc. I'd put this off, because it looked like Ottava was resigning and so it wouldn't be necessary. --Abd 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of custodian rights
I'd like to respond here to some of the comments that I've seen on a number of different pages. Custodianship is a position that requires the trust of the community. When this trust drops below a certain threshold it is appropriate for the community to decide that it is time to remove the tools. In this case the lack of confidence in Ottava Rima continuing as custodian had reached a critical mass among long time contributors. The concerns they expressed had not been addressed and the discussion of the problematic behavior had reached an impasse. I'll certainly consider the suggestion that future discussions of this nature should remain open for a longer period of time, however I do not feel that it would have made a difference in this instance and I also firmly believe that the closure was in the best interest of the community as a whole. I would welcome a discussion on setting guidelines for time limits or other aspects of community reviews. These were originally intended (in part) to facilitate solutions to tense situations but often seem to degrade into a messy tangle of accusations without resolution. This (imho) is toxic to building a cohesive community that can collaborate on innovative learning projects. --mikeu talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Going forward, I would like to see less reliance on Community Reviews and more reliance on Action Research. —Caprice 15:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard wiki process involves resolving disputes, in theory, in levels. Wikipedia is more complex than Wikiversity, and, in theory if not in actual practice, has levels, and there is some overlap. Escalation to a stage involving more users should, in theory, be preceded by stages involving fewer:
 * Direct discussion between two editors.
 * Group discussion of those involved, say with an article, on the article talk page.
 * Request for comment (article or specific issue)
 * Consultation with third editor, attempt to mediate.
 * Formal mediation.
 * Request for Comment (User)
 * Arbitration Committee.

 * The increasingly common use of noticeboards on Wikipedia as if they were part of dispute resolution process is the entrenchment of an error, is part of the Wikipedia Problem, preferentially involving administrators as if they were to be arbiters of disputes, when often they are quite unskilled at this, and make decisions based on shallow opinions, when admin involvement in the process, as any kind of privileged action, is only relevant in the lowest levels, i.e., admins are, presumably, third parties, presumed neutral. Often they aren't neutral... but it's gotten very difficult, there, to fix this.
 * Likewise the Arbitration Committee isn't really part of dispute resolution process, it is part of decision process, specifically decisions about policies and principles and editorial behavior. Its decisions about policies and guidelines, however, are commonly ignored, and only its decisions about blocks and bans are considered writ.

 * Wikiversity has no formal mediation process, and has no Arbitration Committee, so all on-wiki process is advisory to the custodians and bureaucrats who have the power and responsibility to make specific decisions. Community Review is the top-level advisory process, and it's been confused with local Requests for Comments, which are sometimes treated like and turned into quite the same as a Community Review through use of the site notice. That's a process error, removing the distinction that would otherwise be useful between an RfC and CR. Ordinarily, only Community Reviews that meet certain requirements should be announced in the site message. Requests for comment should have tighter requirements to be listed there. In WV policy, only a Community Review can collect consensus on desysopping. We definitely need more attention to guidelines for how to handle all this. The present system allows a single sysop to make a decision both about filing an RfC or CR, and placing it in the site message. That's not proper, there should be some level of consensus that broader discussion is needed for broader participation to be solicited. And that is not a difficult problem to resolve, once we attend to it. --Abd 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikilitigation/WP noticeboards

Noticeboards to study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive2#Request_for_User_Name_Review : (debate on whether User:George W Bush has an appropriate username)
 * WP:AN
 * Archive 2:
 * policies:
 * Username
 * Blocking policy#Username
 * Contacts:
 * Fred Bauder (Username)
 * Netoholic (Blocking policy#Username)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive2#More_inappropriate_image-loading : (a discussion about how to handle a user who uploaded an image of a girl in diapers with the filename "archiefucker.jpg")
 * Policies:
 * Blocking policy
 * Profanity
 * Contacts:
 * Lupo (blocking policy)
 * Noel (Profanity)

 * WP:AN/Moulton (Historical WP:AN discussion regarding the absence of Due Process in WikiCulture.)
 * Issues:
 * Due Process

 * WP:ANI
 * WP:BLPN

title: Wikilitigation/WP noticeboards


text:
Talk:Open academia: Principles and practices

Benefits to society

 * This paper argues that academia should be conducted so as to benefit society and that openness and transparency of academic processes and products are vital for a healthy relationship between society and academia.

Some (many actually) argue that Academic Capitalism (protectionism, public to private transfer, and commercialisation) is the best way for academia to benefit society. They would argue that research becomes patent-able, and if those patents return a profit, they return funds to supplement the public investment in research. They would also argue that positioning universities into commercial activity, attracts other forms of private investment and sponsorship, taking a financial burden off public revenue. While all this is debatable, (such as ver little research is patent-able to the point of profit returning, and commercialising academic practices brings unintended consequences that are yet to be accounted for as losses), it may be necessary for us to carefully consider how we set up the argument.

Perhaps something like:

 * This paper affirms that academia should be conducted so as to benefit society, and argues that open academic practices are now the best way to achieve that goal.

Leighblackall 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; but have reworded like this - what do you think?
 * This paper argues that open academic practices provide greater benefits to society, institutions and academics than do closed practices.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples to discuss

 * discussed in relation to case studies and examples (such as intellectual property[4], open textbooks[5], open journals[6] and open courseware)

We need an example to discuss open governance. Perhaps we look to WMF or even Wikiversity? Seems to me the politics in Wikiversity are very similar to that we experience at UC, in terms of intensity and manoeuvring, yet WV gov is relatively open and transparent. Other examples might be P2PU...

 * discussed in relation to case studies and examples (such as intellectual property[4], open textbooks[5], open journals[6] and open education (courses on Wikiversity), open governance (WV governance structure?))

Leighblackall 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Governance and methodology?

 * Finally, universities should demonstrate transparent governance...

I wonder if this argument extends into methodology? I'm thinking in particular about the Australian Research Council's questionable methodology relating to the Excellence in Research Australia, Journal Ranking exercise. The ERA has been controversial because the method of establishing the list of ranked journals was not clear or well documented, let along taking into account the criticisms that such a list would retard academic work in Australia.

 * Finally, universities should demonstrate transparent governance and academic methodologies...

Leighblackall 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of open academia
They're hard to find, but might be worth including some form of collection and review of any criticism. I can think of my own Neo Colonialism concerns, and Richard Hall's call for a critique and concerns of technological fetishism. Other criticisms might point to the first discussion point here - about the benefits of academic capitalism and commercialisation, and open academia's seeming avoidance of that, remaining ideological before economically practical.

Leighblackall 01:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Pasted from here: Your abstract fails to mention that such open systems are flooded with non-experts who tend to poison the atmosphere, destroy any academic credibility, and turn it into a myspace/World of Warcraft type of drama mongering that is completely unacceptable at a real university. That is why real universities have credential based processes and systems to ensure the protection of both professors and students from inappropriate conflict and outsiders wishing to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - We're mostly focusing in this paper on brick and mortar institutional practices, although in my experience they are far from free of tribal politics themselves, so I think your comment is relevant, regardless. We need to beef up the criticisms of open academia, so thankyou. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of brick and mortar people like myself who use this as a way to facility classroom material. However, I just use it more of a free "BlackBoard" type of software while you've had students here. Anyway, I was channeling Moulton above. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a rival?!? Oy. —Montana Mouse (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava echos my suggestion. By way of beginning a survey of existing literature on the matter, I think this First Monday paper is pretty good, Identifying and Understanding the Problems of Wikipedia's Peer Governance: The case of inclusionists vs deletionists, we would need a few more, including ones that critique the governance and conflict issues affecting traditional academic practices, such a this paper by Susan Awbrey from University of Oregon, Making the Invisible Hand Visible: The case for dialog on academic capitalism, and perhaps the historical collection of critical writing such as Illich.
 * I'd stop short of saying the problems open and networked academia is experiencing in some quarters, are why traditional academia is structured the way it is - though there must be some truth to the suggestion. At this stage, and for this paper, I think it would be enough to simply point out the issue, make the qualifying statement, and list good research and writing on the issue as it affects both approaches to academic practice. Leighblackall 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many schools were tiny, tight knit communities based on trust and friendship to try and keep out the major problems. Small rivalries did exist, but if you are a fan of Harry Potter sometimes those kind of rivals can really help you in the end. ;/ Anyway, it is true that the more people and wider sample you allow in, the greater chance for personalities that don't mix to exist. If your goal is to produce academic content, then don't let in the ones that don't create anything and you will have a better problem to content ratio. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Academics also create content by analyzing, modeling, and solving problems. So if one of the problems is dissension and conflict within academia, there will be academics who undertake to study, analyze, model, and solve such problems.  Above, Leigh cites work by Susan Awbrey.  Among her other work in academia is her pioneering work (with the late Jerry Pine) on Action Research, which is precisely a solution to that very problem.  —Caprice 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean scientists can do that. Not all academics are scientists. In the humanities, it is more about interpreting language and justifying opinions about that language through use of agreed upon concepts and ideas. It requires intelligent debate among those who are dedicated to the same field and topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umberto Eco — an academic who is both a scientist and an author of first-rate literature — says, "Whereof we cannot express a theory, we must tell a story instead." Before scientists are ready to craft their technical theories, we often find poets, artists, and writers portraying the issue in the form of an anecdote, caricature, or parody.  —Caprice 01:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Barriers to open academia
Top ten reasons why academics do not contribute to Wikipedia -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

HERDSA 2011 response

 * NOT accepted for submission as full refereed paper for blind review
 * Recommended for re-development and re-submission as an abstract for a Roundtable by 25 February 2011

"Roundtables have been instigated in response to feedback from previous conferences that participants want more opportunities for discussion. A roundtable is an interactive session of 55 minutes designed to facilitate discussion and debate. Numbers will be limited to 10 - 12 participants per roundtable. The focus of the discussion is a clearly identified topic that reflects an emerging issue in policy, practice or research related to the conference theme. The convenor(s) will introduce the topic and indicate a number of perspectives in no more than 10 mins. The remaining 45 mins of the session will be allocated for discussion.. A nominated person will moderate the discussion."
 * Roundtable discussion - will not provide HERDC/DIISR points

Write up as an article and submitted elsewhere for publication in 2011. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternative
 * I'd like to write and submit elsewhere James. Not sure where, and ERA journals probably won't give many opportunities. But we can only try. Would like to try. Leighblackall 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconvenience
For professors not pursuing active research, the primary factor is arguably that wikis are inconvenient as teaching tools. Wikipedia articles are loaded with material that is either too advanced or irrelevant, and it takes time and effort for an instructor to overcome this. While quality material exists on Wikiversity, it is difficult to find. The general absence of testbanks is another factor. It is common for instructors to change physics textbooks every few years due to concern that the local student population eventually develops an informal bank of solutions to the homework problems. It is very easy for a professor to inspect two or three textbooks that arrive in the mail each year and pick one. Designing a course around wikis is time-consuming, and writing a wiki to teach a course is even more difficult.

These barriers can be overcome, but the process will be slow, especially at first. The lack of organization on Wikiversity parallels a similar such lack on Wikipedia and on commons. On Wikipedia and on commons the solution seems to be the use of external search engines (e.g. Google) to find the material. There is no reason that a Google search will not eventually lead to quality materials on academic wikis. But the growth rate will begin slowly. At the moment few people are searching, which means that few people are finding, which leads to low search engine ranking. But don't despair! What is currently low use of wikis caused by low search engine ranking, can evolve into high use accompanied by high search engine ranking. One universal property of exponential growth is that it begins very slowly. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Order
The best thing about wiki is how good organized and easy accesible is information, categories are very usefull for research and for the feedback in the same speciality or interdisiplinary fields. --Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


text:
Owning the Intangible

Welcome to the parent page for Owning the Intangible (OTI).

Owning the Intangible is a Tutorial (seminar for first-year students) at Grinnell College. In the course students develop skills in thinking, writing, reading, speaking, and working with sources while studying intellectual property (IP) and considering a variety of perspectives of IP in the twenty-first century.

Each student in the course writes an essay on an IP topic of his or her choosing. This year, topics have explored patent, copyright (and alternatives), trademark, and more. I have asked my students to post their essays on Wikiversity and they have generally agreed with this assignment.

 * /Introduction/ by TBD

Links to Papers

 * /IP vs. IP/ by Sadhana Athreya
 * /Patenting the Human Genome/ by Braden Brown
 * /True Ownership/ by Jayson Campos
 * /Sports Patents/ by Andew Clark
 * /Trademarks on Common Words/ by Morgan Counts
 * /CopyTube 2.0/ by Siddharth Dhananjay
 * /Originality/ by Peter Dixon
 * /Free Speech and Copyright/ by Martin Estrada
 * /Sharing Music/ by Andrew Frerick
 * /Music Sampling/ by Claire Tseng

title: Owning the Intangible


text:
Owning the Intangible/CopyTube 2.0

Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. Mark Twain

Introduction
Ever since the original copyright statue was introduced into this world in the year 1709 with the British Statute of Anne, copyright has been both beneficial and detrimental to the intellectual property world. Concepts such as ‘intellectual property’ and ‘copyright’ have always been complex to understand and implement. However, with the digital world expanding every day, IP law and its components are becoming more relevant than ever.

In 2005, the World Wide Web was introduced to YouTube.com and with it came a plethora of copyright troubles. Adding to the already building pile of ownership issues due to the Internet, YouTube was (and still is) a video-sharing website where users could upload any video for others to view, enjoy and comment on. With copyright law allowing the owner of an idea/creative work the right to decide who can have a copy of it, it does not take much to see the immediate threat that YouTube poses to the very definition of copyright. A video of my sister dancing to Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ - however cute as it may be - violates some form of copyright law. Videos like these put together with the fact that YouTube averages a billion views per day reveals the innumerable opportunities for the infringement of copyright law that occur. As Margaret Stewart, YouTube’s Head of User Experience, puts it:

 * So why has nobody ever solved this problem before? It’s because it’s a big problem and it’s complicated and messy. It’s not uncommon for a single video to have multiple rights owners. There are musical labels, there are multiple music publishers and each of these can vary by country. And there are lots of pieces where we have more than one work mashed together. So [YouTube has] to manage many claims to the same video.

Since its exciting beginning in 2005, YouTube has had to face multiple court cases against large corporations claiming the website responsible for the copyright infringement. Furthermore, who is to blame? Should YouTube be responsible for the mistakes of the average user? Should we accuse YouTube or is the uploader of the fraudulent video to blame? However you look at it, YouTube should never be blamed for copyright infringement and web users should be allowed to upload any form of media onto YouTube for the world to watch because not only does YouTube increase the accessibility of information on the Internet but also promotes the copyrighted content. By simply blocking all ‘misuse’, copyright owners may miss out on new audiences and new revenue streams while the world misses out on new cultural movements and forms of art.

What is YouTube?
YouTube is a “free video sharing web site which lets users upload, view, and share video clips, the service utilizes Adobe Flash technology to display video. The wide variety of site content includes movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as video blogging”. Additionally, “It is the most popular video service today...and with a staggering four years of history, you can call YouTube the granddaddy of them all. The graybeard. The old pro. Yoda or Methuselah”. Thus, we can begin to understand the sheer popularity of YouTube since its release in 2005. With over a billion views of videos on YouTube per day, it is the most popular video sharing website in the universe. This also makes it more susceptible to copyright infringement.

In terms of copyright, user-uploaded content posted on YouTube falls into roughly three categories: copied, appropriative and original. The copied texts are mainly users’ television recordings, music videos, movie clips in bite-sized portions with no intended alteration of the source material. Appropriated clips are mostly copyrighted music or footage that are used in conjunction with some derived work, e.g. amateur music videos as users dance and lip-synch to popular songs in their bedrooms, complex fan re-edits of film footage. Original content would mean any video footage that does not incorporate previously copyrighted works. These include homemade videos, video blogs and personal productions. Of all the three categories, Copied material is usually the most popular content on YouTube - especially for catching up with famous TV moments, political faux pas’s or nostalgic clips - and are also the most trouble in terms of copyright.

In order to try and fend off any copyright infringement issues due to Appropriated or Copied content, YouTube currently runs an advanced Content ID verification system. According to YouTube,

 * [We are] committed to helping copyright holders find and remove allegedly infringing content from our site. To that end, we have created a Copyright Verification Tool that assists copyright owners in searching for material that they believe to be infringing, and providing YouTube with information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate that material.

This system, however, does not stop a range of copyright holders in suing YouTube on the basis of copyright theft and infringement.

Recent Cases
Although YouTube has fought many cases on copyright infringement in the past, here are two examples that truly exemplify the complexity of copyright issues that YouTube withholds and why YouTube eventually wins.

Viacom vs. YouTube
In 2007, Viacom appealed in supreme court for copyright infringement, seeking massive damages from YouTube for what Viacom termed its “brazen disregard of the intellectual property laws”. According to the official statement at the time, Viacom had managed to identify 150,000 of its copyrighted clips on YouTube and that, in total, these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Viacom was also outraged at having to ask YouTube to take down every single clip, just to see clips of the same material appear again.

After many years in court, however, Google (YouTube’s new owner) and YouTube won the case. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and concluded that “YouTube fully qualifies for ‘safe harbor’ protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act”.

Youtube vs. Telecinco
In early 2010, local Spanish broadcaster Telecinco sued YouTube for copyright infringement, arguing that it wasn't fair for the rights holder to search the Web for every instance of infringement and therefore YouTube must pay for all the copyright infringing content belonging to Telecinco. The Spanish court however made a ruling “which found that users—not YouTube—are liable for any copyright infringement in their uploaded videos” due to the “safe harbor” principle, similar to the motion of the DMCA.

Fair Use in a YouTube context
As we can see, in both cases, the court ruled in favor of YouTube, posing words such as 'DMCA’ and 'safe harbor’ as their reasons. To clearly understand such complex material, we seek Fred von Lohmann, an American lawyer practicing as a senior copyright counsel at Google. Before joining Google in July 2010, Fred was a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in intellectual property matters. According to Lohmann,

 * The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) included a number of provisions that Congress hoped would clarify the copyright rules that apply to online service providers. One provision, in particular, was designed to protect Web hosting services that feared they might otherwise be held responsible for the materials posted by their customers....[the] Congress added a new "safe harbor" to the copyright laws, intended to give some breathing room to services that store digital information on behalf of users....The safe harbor works like this: so long as a video hosting service abides by a few rules, it cannot be held liable for monetary damages for copyright infringement, even if the material uploaded by its users happens to infringe. In order to qualify for the safe harbor, a hosting service must implement a "notice and takedown" procedure to respond to infringement notices from copyright owners. So long as the service provider removes material promptly after receiving a "takedown" notice, it cannot be sued for money damages. This strikes a reasonable balance for both sides—copyright owners are able to get material removed promptly by simply sending an email, fax, or letter to the hosting service, and the hosting service need not worry about copyright liability until it has received an infringement notice from a copyright owner.

In short, the DMCA safe harbor pulls YouTube out of the disputes between a filmmaker and a copyright owner asserting rights over uncleared materials included in a film. Thus, YouTube does not thereby become potentially liable for every uncleared clip, song, or image that appears because unlike traditional media hubs, YouTube does not host the copyrighted material but simply acts as a ‘middle-man’ for users to upload and view. Therefore, as long as a video hosting provider maintains a "notice-takedown-counternotice" process - as YouTube does - it is mostly safeguarded from the copyright issues created by any materials that may be included in videos uploaded onto it.

Youtube as a Revenue Stream
Although we have concluded that, through the safe harboring of the DMCA, YouTube should not be liable for copyright infringement, we have still placed the blame primarily on the person that originally uploaded the content. Corporations and copyright holders must, however, start viewing their content on YouTube not as a violation of their rights but as free advertisement and a new revenue stream.

The ‘JK Wedding Dance’ exemplifies this point. Jill Peterson (Grinnell '03) and Kevin Heinz decided to diverge from the traditional walk down the aisle at their wedding and instead shimmied to the altar to the tune of R&B singer Chris Brown’s hit song “Forever.” The video of their dance routine, earned “more than 40 million views” on YouTube. The popularity of this viral hit had another important effect: Chris Brown’s single - an 18 month old song - jumped back to no. 4 on iTunes while sales increased from 3,000 to 50,000 digital copies. If Sony had reported the video to YouTube and had it taken down, they would have missed out on large amounts of revenue and popularity. By allowing the video to stay, Sony (and Chris Brown) jumped back into the music scene. The video even ushered an NBC spoof on ‘The Office’.

Youtube as a Cultural Portal
Even if YouTube videos do allow for new revenue streams through the advertising of the copyrighted content, the ultimate decision of whether to allow or take down the video lies within the copyright holders. By viewing YouTube as a cultural portal, however, we can see that YouTube clips must never be taken down. As Lucas Hilderbrand explains,

 * Perhaps the most publicized and outrageous single take-down to date came when public affairs network C-SPAN ordered the removal of Stephen Colbert’s tongue-in-cheek speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in May 2006, which had been watched 2.7 million times within forty eight hours on YouTube and which clearly satirized the state of political journalism...Once publicized on YouTube, these events and issues at times get taken up in the mainstream press. In many cases, this feeds the greater good, though at other times a few seconds of video can cause such a scandal that they may ruin a campaign or damage an entire political career. And, rather than diversifying what audiences see, topical viral videos (viral in the sense of epidemic) reinforce the cultural dominance of specific media clips.

Thus, YouTube clips transcend copyright issues and have the capacity to change lives and the way the world works. Additionally, a number of our personal and social memories are made up of of televised news coverage, funny commercials, specific scenes in popular sitcom’s and so on. With YouTube, the world is given a chance to find and store these 'histories’ that have shaped us “and that would otherwise be forgotten in ‘objective’ history”. Thus, while copyright and IP law seems to hinder its credibility, YouTube may actually be moving in the right path. At this point, opposition will question the existence of multiple copies of the same copyrighted video clip. If it is a record of our social history, shouldn't one suffice? YouTube, however, can also be seen as a library or archive of our social and technological past. It has multiple copies of the same instance for the same reasons a library has multiple copies (and multiple publishers) of the same book. “Copyright law was developed to stimulate publication of new works for the edification of culture” and YouTube enables “access to culturally significant texts that would otherwise be elusive and the ability to re-purpose videos in the creation of new derivative works”. In other words, YouTube and its billion subscribers are, in effect, advocating for what copyright is supposed to do.

Conclusion
YouTube is a social revolution in its own respect - “It’s not about the video. It’s about creating a community around the video". When it comes to intellectual property, however, this community seems to be barred and restricted in terms of what can be uploaded and watched. As Lawrence Lessig, copyright expert, argues, “the laws we have were written for a different world in which information moved slowly and depended on a physical medium to go from idea to newsstand or bookshelf. Our legal system is still struggling to adapt to a post-YouTube world...”. . But even with the legal system that exists today, neither YouTube nor its users must be charged with copyright infringement. While YouTube is safe harbored under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, YouTube’s users not only help promote the copyrighted content they upload but also add to the cultural history of humankind.

title: Owning the Intangible/CopyTube 2.0


text:
Owning the Intangible/IP vs. IP

The controversies surrounding intellectual property rights (IPRs’), more specifically patents, in the context of traditional knowledge of medicine and plant breeding involve the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. The main issues that are at the heart of this controversy are whether or not corporations are entitled to a patent on products using or derived from traditional knowledge and whether their actions constitute biopiracy. Cases of patents using traditional knowledge illustrate that indigenous people have had to fight to prevent exclusive rights to traditional knowledge. However, the fight against companies using traditional knowledge has also resulted in indirect benefits to indigenous people since it has resulted in the organization of traditional knowledge through digital databases.

Defining Intellectual property and Indigenous people
Intellectual property rights (IPR's) are property rights resulting from creations of the mind such as inventions - scientific discoveries, images, symbols and literary or artistic works. Intellectual property rights allow the owner, or creator to benefit from their innovation and creativity. Intellectual property includes copyrights, patents and trademarks. Indigenous literally means “from” or “originating from somewhere” (Wikipedia, 2010). Therefore, in the literal sense of the term, people from a certain region can be called indigenous people.

Bioprospecting and Biopiracy: A Matter of Perspective
Indigenous people and corporations clash around issues of bioprospecting or biopiracy. The search for commercial-scientific utility in biological resources is known as bioprospecting by those in favor of, and biopiracy by those opposed to the practice. Bio-prospecting involves not only the search for medicinal plants and herbs but also the traditional knowledge of the indigenous people who have been using the plants as herbal remedies.

Companies send their botanists and agronomists around the globe. They most often visit developing or underdeveloped countries where not everything is industrialized. Samples of biological resources are usually brought back to the company's laboratories which may form the basis for new plant varieties, drugs or extracts. Bioprospecting is important for drug discovery and research. Through bioprospecting many great pharmaceutical developments like the invention of the polio vaccine and the invention of sophisticated diagnostic tools for screening have been possible. On the surface bioprospecting does not appear to be a problem. However, native communities may feel differently. The resources that belonged to no one or everyone are now under the rule of the patent system. Some argue that living systems should be free, and that through intellectual property rights, “an attempt is made to take away what belongs to nature, farmers, to women, and to term this innovation improvement and progress”. Others have pointed out that the patent system has “removed incentives for local communities” to preserve and protect their biological resources. Additionally, bioprospecting by pharmaceutical companies is criticized by those opposed to the practice  for cheating local people by denying them access to knowledge and financial benefits. In many cases commercial bioprospecting agreements cannot be monitored well by countries. There are no regulations in place to ensure that the source countries of these plants will be compensated. In such cases, where the rights of indigenous peoples are challenged or diminished, bioprospecting is often referred to as biopiracy. Bioprospecting or biopiracy, regardless of the term, involves researchers seeking to understand and use traditional knowledge.

Traditional knowledge
In India, carom seeds or “ajwain” are used to treat stomach pains. Just one spoon of it and within 10 minutes, the pain vanishes. Similarly, neem tree leaves are boiled with ground black pepper and “tulsi”or Indian basil to make a concoction to soothe the common cold, ”Kala jeera” or black cumin seeds are used to increase one's general immunity. These cures for illnesses are known in almost every household in India. There are a multitude of such methods. This is called Traditional knowledge (TK), the knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next. People know these cures only because their parents or grandparents told them about it who in turn must have learnt from their ancestors. Traditional knowledge is often oral and is not written anywhere.
 * Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities around the world. Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, traditional knowledge is transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be collectively owned and takes the form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, local language, and agricultural practices, including the development of plant species and animal breeds. Traditional knowledge is mainly of a practical nature, particularly in such fields as agriculture, fisheries, health, horticulture, and forestry.

Traditional knowledge has been applied on biological resources like plants and trees for generations. When these people were faced by illness for example, they developed ways of using the resources at hand to cure themselves of it. Researchers look for biological resources rich in healing qualities so that they can make new drugs. Making life saving drugs is not the issue here. The real issue is that in doing so, the scientists also make use of the traditional knowledge that goes along with the indigenous resource. Companies use this traditional knowledge in developing their drug, which they patent as their own invention. Traditional knowledge helps to increase the efficiency of screening plants for medical properties while only a tiny fraction of the profits are returned to the indigenous peoples and local communities. Commodities or plants that were once easily accessible by the indigenous people become governed by patents. In the next section, the problems and issues that arise from companies patenting products with the use of traditional knowledge are described and analyzed.

Cases
Some of the famous patents that big corporations have been trying to take out on biological resources are: the neem tree, the chamomile plant, the rosy periwinkle, the Enola bean, basmati rice, hoodia plant, Indian wheat, soybean and maize from Mexico. Examples from cases of patents versus the rights of indigenous people can clarify the issue.

Neem Tree Case
Neem or azadirachta indica is an evergreen tree that grows in tropical and semi tropical regions. It is most commonly found in the South Asian subcontinent. Products made from neem have been used in India for over two millennia. It is referred to as the 'village pharmacy' in India because of its various healing properties. It has been found to be an anthelmintic, antifungal, anti diabetic, anti bacterial, antiviral, contraceptive and sedative. Besides this, it is also used as a pesticide. Some people use neem twigs to brush their teeth as well.

One of the most famous cases surrounding the patent of the neem tree is the WR Grace case. In 1995, WR Grace patented a neem based pesticide, Neemix (#5352697) for application on crops. The patent was granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). By the end of 1995, the sales from Neemix alone brought in 60 million dollars out of a total profit of 5 billion dollars. The Indian government appealed against the patent and won the case in 2000. The EPO agreed that the process by which Neemix was obtained was in use in India for many years. The when and where of “the alleged prior use were clearly established as summer 1985 and 1986 in the Pune and Sangli districts of Maharashtra, Western India”. Usually, if there is 'prior existing knowledge' about a product, the patent application is rejected. The Indian government argued that the neem tree was part of Indian traditional knowledge. WR Grace appealed the argument but lost the appeal in 2005. The result of this case is promising for indigenous peoples’ rights.

Turmeric Case
Another patent on a product that people in India use as medicine is Turmeric. Turmeric is a herbaceous plant belonging to the ginger family found in tropical South Asia. Turmeric has been traditionally used in India for its special healing properties. It is used for sore throats and colds, for scraped knees and to treat acne. It is also used in everyday cooking in India. It is yellow in color like saffron, and is known as Indian saffron in Europe.

In 1995, two US based Indians were granted the patent on 'Use of turmeric in wound healing' by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Despite the common use of turmeric in India as a blood purifier and anti-parasitic as well as for topical wounds, the patent seekers, Suman Das and Hari Har Cohly claimed that “the present invention provides a method of promoting healing of a wound in a patient, which consists essentially of administering a wound-healing agent consisting of an effective amount of turmeric powder to said patient”. However, in United States Patent law, 'prior existing knowledge' is recognized only when it is published in a journal and not when it is passed down from generation to generation in folk traditions. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - “The invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent”.

The Indian Government filed for reexamination of the patent. Even though everyone in India knew the healing properties of turmeric for ages, finding a published document was not easy for the government. However they did finally find 32 references, some of which were over a 100 years old in the languages – Hindi, Persian and Sanskrit. The USPTO then revoked the patent agreeing that prior knowledge of the product existed. The Indian government, in an effort to combat patent laws that require proof of ‘prior existing knowledge’ and to prevent unethical patents and biopiracy, started a non-patent database called the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library in 2001. As of 2010, the library has translated over 140 ancient texts as well as home remedies and cultural practices into several languages. In both the above cases, that of the neem tree and turmeric, we see how Intellectual property rights can threaten the rights of Indigenous people. A third case involves plant breeding.

Indian Wheat
A well known example of seed patenting is the case of Monsanto and Indian Wheat. Monsanto, the world's largest genetically modified seed company was awarded a patent (EP 445929) on Nap Hal, a strain of Indian wheat in 2003 by the European Patent Office. The patent covers wheat exhibiting certain kinds of qualities making it suitable for baking. With this patent, Monsanto has acquired the monopoly on the farming, breeding and processing of a number of wheat varieties. Monsanto’s acquiring the patent of Nap Hal, the wheat used for making chapattis – a flat bread staple of North India, led to a fear that indigenous people would have to pay royalties for making or selling chapattis. “Nap Hal's qualities are the result of generations of farmers in India who spent years crossbreeding crops and collective, not corporate, efforts should be recognized”. These farmers initially grew the wheat crops for their own need of making the chapattis. "It is theft of the results of the work in cultivation made by Indian farmers," said Dr Christoph Then, Greenpeace's patent expert.

The controversy here is that Monsanto says that they got Nap Hal from a gene bank. In Monsanto's patent claim they say that Nap Hal is not an Indian wheat variety. They say that Nap Hal means 'no seeds' and it cannot be an indigenous seed variety because farmers bred seed to produce seed. The point here is they did not literally breed the Nap Hal seeds. With this patent, Monsanto can not only control the farming and processing of these crops but can also control seed swapping, which is a common practice in India among farmers. In addition to this, Monsanto can prevent other farmers from growing the crop.

 * Creators can be given the right to prevent others from using their inventions, designs or other creations — and to use that right to negotiate payment in return for others using them. These are “intellectual property rights”.

The traits of low elasticity, low gluten which are being patented are not an invention, but derived from an Indian variety. “The soft wheat flour containing fewer than 3 different HMW glutenin subunits” was one of the 15 claims. Shiva says that the crossing with a soft milling variety is an obvious step to any breeder. The patent is based on piracy, not on non-obvious novelty, and hence needs to be challenged to stop legal precedence being created on false claims to invention. Shiva believes that this patent should be challenged based on this reason and many more. In October 2004, Greenpeace successfully challenged the patent claim on the basis of it being bio-piracy and the European Patent Office revoked the patent on Nap Hal.

Implications
The examples of Neem, Turmeric and Wheat show that when big corporations try to patent a product that involves indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge, the rights of indigenous people are threatened. In all the cases, the indigenous people had to fight back in order to revoke the patents. By trying to patent products available freely, corporations have forced indigenous people to fight back with the same claims to intellectual property. The difference is that the indigenous claim is that of collective intellectual property rather than individual intellectual property. Patents for herbal remedies and plants that are freely available will limit their use unfairly and also prevent future innovation in the field of medicine and health both in the scientific field as well as by ordinary people who can add to traditional knowledge over time. Fighting to prevent misappropriation of traditional knowledge has resulted in the creation of databases of traditional knowledge, an unintended benefit for indigenous people. These databases can prevent patents that unfairly restrict or appropriate knowledge. In addition, governments can work toward creating collaborative agreements that can benefit both parties concerned and facilitate the growth of science.

The Roles of Governments
As we have seen in the cases of the neem tree and turmeric, the government of a country(India), has the power to stop western companies from patenting biological resources. However, besides fighting back to revoke patents already granted, other solutions can be offered that will protect the rights of indigenous people while advancing research in medicine. IP needs to be adapted to take into account the rights of Indigenous people.

Benefit sharing. Currently, there is no law in place for patent holders to share any benefits of the product with the persons who initially helped locate, preserve or protect that biological resource. There should be a transparent system through which the communities that help discover a resource are fairly compensated and taken care of by the law.

Collaboration. The natives or locals of a certain area from where the resources are being patented can be given training and then offered a job so that they can also get the opportunity to progress. For this to happen, there has to be effective communication between the governments of the countries involved. Policies have to be put in place that are applicable all over the world. One example is Columbia where the indigenous groups have agreed to collaborate with western corporations for a joint development of commercial products from two plants with medicinal properties. In this case, the medicines will carry the label of the local indigenous group that contributed traditional knowledge.

Sanctions and Protection. Governments need to be more active and should intervene before a patent application is even made or at least before it is wrongly granted.

Database of Indigenous Knowledge. Creating a database of indigenous knowledge much like the Indian government has done will prevent corporations from threatening the rights of indigenous people.

Conclusion
Bioprospecting or biopiracy, depending on which side is looking at it, has its pros and cons. Although bioprospecting has helped the pharmaceutical industry develop over the last 20 years it has also muted the development of a lot of indigenous people. Scientists should be allowed to look for new resources to help discover new drugs or new varieties of crops. However, they should not be allowed to patent something that is used freely by people. Documenting prior and existing cultural use of plants is a first step to preventing unfair patents.

When I first read about instances of biopiracy, I was stunned and offended. However, as I sat down to do the research, I found that while biopiracy does threaten the rights of indigenous people, it has also helped them indirectly. By patenting what belongs to nature, companies are forcing the indigenous people to fight for their collective intellectual property. While this may not be the best way to go about it, we have seen that in the case of the Indian Government, after they had to fight to overturn many patents taken out on biological products, they did turn to make a traditional knowledge digital library, a resource that will benefit everyone.

title: Owning the Intangible/IP vs. IP


text:
User:Peter Kindfield

I have MAs in Educational Psychology and Science Education and a Ph.D. in Science Education from UC Berkeley. I have taught public school in Oakland CA, been a Professor of Education at the Brooklyn College and City College campuses of the City University of New York and Science Coordinator and Lead Science Staff Developer for Community School District 2 in Manhattan. I have also been Senor Partner at LURNIX and Director of Educational Services at NeXT Computer.

Currenty I am Principal, Custodian, Math, Science and Social Science Teacher, High School Advisor, Recess Man and One of the Learners at The Farm School in Summertown TN. I am also Summer Program Coordinator, Counselor and Participant in the Kids To The Country (KTC) program of Plenty International, a Lifeguard at The Farm Swimming Hole and a Taiji Teacher with the Yin, Cheng, Gong, Fa Association, North American Branch.

title: User:Peter Kindfield


text:
Owning the Intangible/Trademarks on Common Words

Introduction
Johnny sat inside reading a book, but put his face to the window right when an apple fell from the sky. Most would not dispute the claim that this sentence uses some of the most basic words in the English language. However, many would not believe that six of those words are “owned” by multi-billion dollar corporations as Intellectual Property, in the form of a trademark. Trademarks are a form of intellectual property that allows businesses to creatively distinguish their products from those of other businesses. Anything unique to the senses-words, phrases, symbols, logos, sounds, shapes, smells-can potentially be trademarked (United States Patent and Trademark Office 2010). Pay careful attention to the word unique. The word windows is not unique. It is a transparent sheet of glass that separates a cozy interior from the outside world. Yet for some reason, in the continuous race to dominate the market, corporations are claiming rights to these words and fighting for them as if they created the dictionary.

A variety of legal battles over who has a right to use the English language for business have been making headlines for years. Five years ago, Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB pursued a lawsuit against the messenger program Skype, because the “company claims to own the sky in Skype” (Eaton 2010). Software giant Microsoft has filed suit against a start-up company Lindows.com for trying to label its software as Lindows, a one-letter difference from Microsoft’s Windows (Isenberg 2002). The multi-million dollar social networking sight, Facebook, is trying to sue a small online teachers’ community, Teachbook.com, because of the word book. Its argument is that “Teachbook’s use of book dilutes the Facebook brand name, impairs Facebook’s ability to remain unique and creates the façade of a false relationship between the two social networking entities” (Van Grove, 2010). The challenge is to understand the motive behind obtaining trademarks and what benefits and consequences may result.

An important question to ponder in taking on this challenge is what happens to words, like aspirin, hula-hoop, and trampoline that were once intellectual property, but eventually became a term for every product that resembled the original (Wikipedia 2010)? The rights to the name are lost. Maintaining a trademark requires the holder to protect its name, specifically through the law. If the company does not do enough to protect the mark, or if the mark’s popularity causes it to be used generically, the trademark no longer exists. Desai and Rearson discuss the effects of a generalized trademark:

 * Insofar as you used any of the terms in a general way to indicate a product or service class rather than a specific product or service, trademark holders would be quite upset because such uses may lead to a finding that the trademark has become generic. Once a term is deemed…generic, that is, the general term used to refer to a product or service category, the formerly valuable mark loses its ability to function as a trademark. When that happens, the mark, which may have been highly valuable to the trademark holder, becomes essentially worthless (Desai, & Rierson 2007).

An increasing number of corporations are being allowed to trademark common words, when trademarked words that become common lose their trademark-it does not make sense. Developing the ideas behind this common oxymoron requires answering three important questions: Can a company really monopolize a common English word? Is it worth the corporation time and money to legally attack small businesses over a common word? How can a common word be trademarked when a trademarked word that becomes too generic loses its trademark?

Monopolization of Common Words
There is a phrase often used to motivate those who hesitate that goes, “feel the fear and do it anyway (Masnick 2009).” One blogger learned the hard way that apparently, the English language now comes with a price. Leo Blabauta happened to use this phrase in a blog, oblivious that an author had made it a title of her book just recently. Lawyers of author Susan Jeffers, Ph.D. pursued the blogger for trademark infringement, claiming that he needed to acknowledge Jeffers in the blog. The lawyers will not be successful because a book title must require secondary meaning (readers associate the title with only one source of the literary work) for it to be trademarked, or the blogger used it commercially as “unfair competition” (Rich 1998). The perturbed blogger sums up his frustrations:

 * I find it unbelievable that a common phrase (that was used way before it was the title of any book) can be trademarked…Perhaps I’m a little behind the times, but is it really possible to claim whole chunks of the language, and force people to get permission to use the language, just in everyday speech (Masnick 2009).

Although the title is not trademarked, contrary to what the blogger was lead to believe, the publishers act as a corporation, which shows that legal action is being taken to try to secure a monopoly over the English language. Large corporations, especially bigwigs like Facebook and Starbucks are successful in monopolizing common words because attacking small companies with trademark infringement through the law is becoming increasingly easier, which threatens other entrepreneurs who dare to try.

The increase in threats began in 1995, when the Federal Government deemed trademark infringement as the attempt to “dilute” a corporation’s trademark with a similar mark, with a law so generic that evidence barely needs to go farther than a simple accusation. Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, any company that uses a mark that potentially dilutes a well-known mark is subject to law suit. However, “there is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion, nor is there any need to show competition between the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant.” The stipulation is that only “famous” marks, such as KODAK, COCA-COLA, and REEBOK are protected under this act (Tysver 2008). Not only does the law make trademark protection nearly effortless, it is biased toward companies that already have near monopolies in their markets. All companies like KODAK, COCA-COLA, and REEBOK have to do is accuse a smaller company for trademark infringement, and protection and growth of its trademark become much easier. Recent legal battles in the corporate world have personified the Trademark Dilution Act, bringing this process to life. On the other hand, advancing technologies such as the internet provide new avenues for trademark infringement.

With over 500 million active users and 700 billion minutes of use worldwide per month, it is no wonder that social networking site Facebook has enough corporate power to successfully monopolize at least half of its common word combination, book. Facebook can easily pursue new and smaller networking sites with its 33 billion dollar shares and its global authority (Facebook.com: Statistics 2010). On August 18th, 2010 Facebook filed a complaint against an alternative networking site for teachers called “Teachbook” (Facebook Inc v Teachbook.com 2010). Lawyers for Facebook claim the name dilutes the distinctiveness of their mark (Pepitone 2010). According to a trademark partner at the UK Intellectual Property Law Firm Withers & Rogers Tania Clark, “’90% of cases like this never make it to court as the smaller company caves in” (qtd. in Halliday 2010). Whether the case makes it to court or not, all it takes is for Facebook to win its asking price of three times the damages and lawyer fees and every other company trying to use the word book will hide in the corner (Halliday 2010). Even though it may seem irrational to go after a small startup company that poses little threat, it is obvious that Teachbook was attempting to gain from Facebook’s success and the networking giant was able to stop it. With money and unlimited access to press coverage, corporate giants can gain monopolies over a common word.

In 2005, the infamous coffee house chain Starbucks decided to pick on a coffee shop in the small town of Astoria, Oregon: Population, 10,000 people. The owner of the shop, Sam Lundberg, used her first and maiden name (Bucks) to call the shop SamBucks. Starbucks offered a measly $500 for Lundberg to change the name and when she refused, Starbucks took Sambucks to court. The judge ruled that “There is no right to use an individual’s own name in business where the use confuses the public…Starbucks is entitles to a permanent injunction to prohibit Lundberg from further use of the name ‘Sambucks’ or any other variation on Starbucks’ trademark” (Starbucks Corporation v. Samantha Lundberg 2005). Ironically, the founders of Starbucks derived the name from the Moby Dick character, Starbuck (Stossel & Goldberg 2005). Starbucks stole its name from a name, while Sam Lundberg is simply used her own name. However, since a Moby Dick character cannot file a lawsuit and the name of Lundberg’s coffee shop created customer confusion, Starbucks can rightfully file for trademark infringements of its name.

Whether or not Lundberg had the same intentions that the founders of Teachbook had, her small town coffee shop, it is obvious that SamBucks was not going to bring an end to Starbucks, but the coffee chain had to protect its trademark. They went after Lundberg with the hope that others would learn what not to do. Fordham University law professor Hugh Hansen says, “It’s about setting a precedent…If they don’t stop her, it’s hard to stop the next one. And big money is at stake” (Stossel & Goldberg 2005). In order to monopolize a trademark, it must be legally protected and setting a precedent is the best way to achieve protection. Many may criticize Starbucks for picking on such a small business, but if Starbucks can trademark a combination of two common words and make money off it, they are going to do it.

When questioning the logic of gaining a trademark on a common English word, it should be understood how companies come to monopolize a common word and more importantly, that it is possible. The trademark owner must actively pursue infringers in order to keep the trademark, but the corporation has to prove nothing besides a mere similarity in the marks to take the alleged trademark infringer to court. Corporations such as Facebook and Starbucks use this law to monopolize their trademark by weeding out even the slightest competition. So it is possible, but the next question to pose is, is it resourceful? Does it make sense for these corporations to spend so much time and money on pursuing tiny, zero-threat businesses over an English word?

Loss of Resources
Imagine having to pay five dollars every time someone says the word the. As much of an exaggeration this may be, comparatively, big corporations expend money every time they try to bring down a company that uses a common word in its name. Yes, corporations have to set a precedent to protect their trademark, but is it worth it to have to stop every start-up company from using the common word they claim to own? Take Facebook as an example. Facebook can take Teachbook to court to set its precedent, but if it does, “Facebook will have a job on its hands…given the volume of companies using a variation of the disputed mark,” which counts in the hundreds (Halliday 2010). Facebook, or any corporation, cannot spend the money and time fighting hundreds of small companies over a word that can be found in the dictionary. A more logical approach would be to come up with a name without words that can be easily used by entrepreneurs creating similar products. A trademark on a word (or combination of words) that can easily be used by other companies leads to a number of potential court cases for the original company. Court case after court case eventually digs holes of financial disasters and questions the worthiness of the trademark.

It is not the name that makes a company rich, it is the product, and if acquisition and protection of the name wastes time and money, the name is not worth the product. The word windows has been used in computer lingo nearly as long as the word computer has been used in the English language (Markoff 1994). Windows is as common in the computer industry as it is in the homebuilding industry. No wonder it took three years and one million dollars for software giant Microsoft to (unexplainably) acquire a trademark on the word. Three years (1990-1993) of time and money spent on obtaining a trademark that has lead to 17 years of time and money spent on monopolizing the name (Markoff 1994). Shortly after the trademark approval, Microsoft went after a start-up software company called “Lindows” (Markoff 1994). There may only be a one-letter difference, but Microsoft was putting a lot of effort into stopping a company that 1) Stood no competitive chance and 2) Used a variation of a word that people use with computers every day, whether they come from Microsoft, Apple, or Gateway. Microsoft settled by paying “Lindows” 20 million dollars to change its name to Linspire (Associated Press 2004). In the end, the start-up company gained 20 million dollars and a name that sounds much better than the original. Maybe Microsoft can hand over 20 million dollars, but they cannot give out 20 million times 100 (as in Facebook’s case), and they arguably did not make more than the cost of this battle just because Lindows changed its name. Once again, Windows was setting its precedent, but it takes a lot of continuous time and money to protect a name that uses a word commonly used throughout an industry. However, there are some cases that do not seem rational, as names of the companies become less similar and cross over to different industries.

Recent legal battles are evidence that trying to monopolize a common word may lead to a loss of time and money. This particular accusation does not make much sense, until another motive is considered. Rupert Murdoch’s United Kingdom television service BSkyB recently filed legal allegations against networking company Skype, because it felt it owned rights to the word sky (Eaton 2010). Almost anyone would fail to connect BSkyB to Skype, considering the differences in companies, products, and even the name. Word of the allegations was reported “after a brief reference to the legal action in the 250-page document announcing Skype’s Wall Street flotation” (Eaton 2010). The motivation appears to be money. Protecting a trademark within an industry, or within obvious attempts of infringement, makes sense, but there seems to be neither of those connections in this case. Protecting the word sky like this will give BSkyB plentiful opportunities to go to court and possibly make money, but it will cost them valuable resources in return.

Another company caught in the midst of unreasonable common word battles is computer giant Apple, but not over the word apple. In 2009, Apple targeted entrepreneur Daniel Kokin and his video projector he has referred to as Video Pod since the year 2000 (Chen 2010). Apple does not carry products in video projection and Kokin believes Apple shows no interest in that field of production. Kokin is not the first “podder” to be accused of trademark infringement, as Apple has gone after uses such as “MyPodder…PodShow, and even Podium” (Chen 2010). Kokin’s lawyer Ana Christian is not oblivious to the type of monopoly corporations have been trying to gain:

 * She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words… ‘I’m trying to look at it on the big picture,’ Christian said. ‘What I’m hoping to do with this case is to really reach a lot broader of an audience and make it so entrepreneurs can use the English language as they see fit in branding their products’ (Chen 2010).

Owning a trademark on the word apple makes more sense than owning one over pod. Apple does not describe the products made by the tech company, and trademark infringement within the same industry would be blatant. However, pod can be used to describe the function of products made, and businesses often use names that serve this purpose to avoid customer confusion. Trying to take ownership of descriptive words such as pod creates hassle for the owner and for people like Kokin, and both parties spend more money on these hassles than would be necessary.

In questioning the resourcefulness of trying to maintain a trademark on a word commonly used within an industry, recent legal cases and the motivations behind them make apparent that these trademarks simply result in a loss of time and money. Microsoft spent years obtaining a trademark on a word still generically used in the computer industry that costs the corporation money every time a small business uses a variation. BSkyB is trying to defy the odds that one individual could possibly own the sky and Apple wants all entrepreneurs to rename anything that identifies as a Pod. Also, publicity is not going to be beneficial when the corporation is trying to protect something they cannot easily have. The final inquiry into the common trademark trend deals with what happens to trademarks that become generic and what this means for the corporations attempting to do the opposite. The supposed originality of the trademark faces the ultimate obstacle when it is met with a society that decides to make it generic, which is not hard to do with a word that is already generic.

Generic Words and Trademark
People tend to refer to any type of paper that comes in contact with contents of the nose, whether it is actual tissue paper, toilet paper, or paper towel, as Kleenex. Kleenex is a trademarked brand name and the company would probably not appreciate the toilet paper connection. This is an example of a trademark in the process of becoming generic. According to the International Trademark Association,

 * Generic terms are common words or terms, often found in the dictionary, that identify products and services and are not specific to any particular source…If a trademark becomes generic, often as a result of improper use, rights in the mark may no longer be enforceable (INTA 2010).

Descriptions of products such as Aspirin, E-Mail, and Zipper were all registered as trademarks before they became generic terms, as determined by court rulings (Wikipedia 2010). Corporations are spending a lot of time and money to obtain and protect a trademark on a common word when it is possible that society will bring it back to the levels at which it began, generic and free. Corporations that have enough money to acquire and temporarily protect a trademark on a common English word find themselves caught in cycles of money-consuming legal battles, which leads to bad publicity and a loss of customers and a possible loss of the trademark.

A look into some of the controversy surrounding trademarks of generic terms in the cases previously discussed shows how close some of these trademarks could be to being deemed generic, and even how interesting it is that some of them achieved ownership in the first place. Microsoft waited three years to obtain its Windows trademark because previous rulings called the term “too generic,” and even the final ruling gave no explanation as to why the term was not generic enough (Markoff 1994). In an analysis of the trademark, author Doug Isenberg gives the reader the task of asking the question, “What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than windows, to describe its product? If you can’t think of one, then windows just might be generic” (Isenberg 2002). It is obvious that in many of these cases, the infringer is attempting to make a gain off the success of the original trademark holder, but many also use words or spinoffs of words that describe the product. As more and more people use variations of the term Windows to accurately describe a product, Microsoft will lose the time, money, and power to put a stop to every individual. Once the term Windows is deemed generic, Microsoft cannot prevent anyone from using the term or even a similar one (Isenberg 2002). It is only a matter of time before society takes back what it rightfully owns.

Once a corporation obtains a trademark that is already generic, a downward spiral of loses begins. Even though a trademark should not be awarded to a generic term, corporations who have the most money are able to buy them. They are also the most successful at protecting generic trademarks because of this money. However, more money means more popularity, which causes overuse of the brand name. Popularity may be important, but a famous product with a famous name causes consumers to refer to similar products with the same name (take Kleenex, for example), and when the term is already generic, this goes into effect quickly. Some may dispute by asking, what is the point of taking the time to create a name when popularity will cause it to become generic anyway? There is no guarantee that a trademark will not become generic, no matter how creative it is. However, throughout a long period of time, a trademark of an already-generic word will cost the company a lot more money.

The loss of this money over time is cumulative, as more and more companies decide to describe their products with the generic term. Trademark infringement allegations are expensive to carry out in court, and often the plaintiff is the one who ends up paying the settlement (i.e. so the defendant changes its name). One company may be easy to deal with, but hundreds and even thousands of companies can be overwhelming. The corporation could lose a lot of money over a term that would probably become generic. In addition to financial losses in court, the corporation also loses money through a loss in customers because of the media coverage of another “attack” of a small, innocent entrepreneur. In one very controversial trademark battle, computer cable manufacturer Monster Cable Products Inc. sought legal allegations against Monster.com, Disney and Pixar’s Monsters Inc., the Boston Redsox, kids’ t-shirts, and a miniature golf course, all for use of the word monster. The cable company lost $200,000 and 200 fuming customers in the miniature golf course case alone (Gunelius 2009). Monster Cable lost many customers over accusations that were not necessary, as the products were not related by any means. Lost customers is just another blow to the revenue that cumulates with money spent on trademark applications and court fees, which amounts to front seat tickets to watch the trademark slip from the grip of the corporation.

Trademarks in corporations such as Facebook, Starbucks, Microsoft, BSkyB, and Apple are bound to follow in the footsteps of Aspirin, E-Mail, and Zipper. The only difference is, the latter did not take words from the dictionary and claim to own them, they created them. These big name corporations are not adding a word to the dictionary, they are taking them, and it is only a matter of time before society takes them back. Although these corporations have enough influence to obtain and protect a generic trademark in the short run, the expenses and loses accumulated over years of court cases will burn the trademark out and the natural process of returning the word to its generic state will triumph. It is the product that produces the success, so corporations would save time and money by adding another word to the English language, rather than taking one.

Conclusion
Giant corporations have enough money and influence to obtain and protect a trademark of a generic word (or combination of these words), which makes the words more vulnerable to the effects of generic trademarks.

When trademarked words become too generic-that is, they actually become part of the regularly used language-they can no longer be owned as intellectual property. Multi-billion dollar corporations should be spending their time and multi billions on something more beneficial in the long run than cracking down on companies that will attempt to use these words as descriptions of industrial products, whether their actions are actually that innocent or not. Trying to own a common word used within an industry as a trademark is a waste of time and money. Corporate giants may be able to stop a few innocent entrepreneurs from using a common word, as a description of a product or business, but the corporation is not gaining from the negative publicity. A corporation valued in the billions is not going to go down because of one tiny shop in Middle-of-Nowhere, USA. Even if one gutsy computer scientist decided to create a networking site and call it “Facebook,” the current Facebook would not lose 500 million users. It would not even lose one, because the content makes the product, not the name. There are three options when it comes to obtaining a trademark on a common word. The first option is to take every small business that uses a variation of the word to court and file for bankruptcy. The second is to save money and allow the small businesses to use the word and eventually lose control over the trademark that became generic, again. The third option is to think of something new, because the English language simply cannot be owned.


text:
Owning the Intangible/Introduction

This is a draft introduction, intended to serve as a placeholder until the real introduction is written by a member of the class.

Owning the Intangible. A simple, but perhaps puzzling, phrase. We all know about owning tangible objects. This is "my book", "my house", even "my partner". But it's not always clear what it means to own less tangible things. Can this be "my idea", "my process", "my character", even "my expression of someone else's idea" or "my news story"? We may have informal senses of ownership, but the laws governing such ownership are much more complicated than the laws governing ownership of physical objects.

Over the past few months, a group of twelve students, one faculty member, and associated collaborators have been exploring notions of ownership in the twenty-first century. They have considered three main areas of intellectual property law: Patent, Trademark, and Copyright. In this volume, you will find the essays they have written on particular problems and domains of IP law that they've identified as being particularly interesting.

Samuel A. Rebelsky, Grinnell, 2010

title: Owning the Intangible/Introduction


text:
User:Rebelsky/Books/Owning the Intangible

Possession, Theft, and (Mis)Appropriation of Ideas

 * Introduction

 * Sadhana Athreya
 * IP vs. IP: Intellectual Property vs. Indigenous Peoples

 * Braden Brown
 * The Importance of Patenting the Human Genome

 * Jayson Campos
 * True Ownership

 * Andrew Clark
 * Sports Patents: Hurting Not Helping

 * Morgan Counts
 * Trademarks on Common Words: Potential consequences for generic trademark holders

 * Sidharth Dhananjay
 * CopyTube 2.0: YouTube and Beyond

 * Peter Dixon
 * What's So Original About Originality?

 * Martin Estrada
 * Free Speech vs. Copyright: Parody Rights in the Air Pirates and Beyond

 * Andrew Frerick
 * Sharing Music in the Digital Age

 * Michael Himmel
 * Alternatives to Copyright: Constructing a Common Consensus for the Creative

 * Claire Tseng
 * The Exploration of a Solution to Music Sampling That Contributes to the Musical Culture