text:
Owning the Intangible/Sharing Music

Introduction
Can you imagine paying $675,000 for 30 of your favorite songs? Well in July of 2009, Joel Tenenbaum lost his court case against four record labels, and was forced to pay $675,000 in damages to the record labels for illegally downloading copyrighted songs off the Internet (Itzkoff 2009). The act of downloading music without permission has been around for quite some time and is increasing world-wide. According to a recent report, “The number of regular illegal file sharers rose 35% between 2003 and 2007” (RIAA 2008). Downloading music without permission is quiet simple. First, you just download certain file-sharing software, which can be easily found for free. Then all you have to do is type the title of a song, artist, movie, or any other media type that you would like to download into the search bar, and it pulls up many different locations of such file so all you have to do is click on one and it downloads it to your computer. Not having to pay is one of the many reasons why unauthorized downloading has become so popular, not only is it free, but it’s also easy to do.

When a consumer downloads music without permission, not only the consumer, but even the artist benefits. For example, it makes artists connect more with fans and work harder to create something new and fresh. However, there are also downsides of unauthorized downloading. The RIAA and the major record companies claim that peer-to-peer networking is the number one reason for the recent decline in total sales. Although downloading music without permission is illegal, the punishments don’t fit the crime and downloading without permission can be beneficial for everyone.

Background and Lawsuits
The act of downloading music without permission has been around for a while, but it didn’t go main stream until the early 2000’s when digital music service called Napster was released. Napster was an online music sharing service that allowed its users to easily share their music with other users with no cost. However, in 2000, several record companies via the RIAA sued Napster for copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The RIAA claimed that Napster’s users were infringing on the record companies copyrights, and that Napster was liable. Napster’s attorneys argued that Napster wasn’t breaking any laws because it’s protected by the law as long as none of its members are making money from any of the songs. In the end, the court ruled against Napster and ordered them to shut down (Borland 2000).

Even though Napster only ran for about two years, it had a major impact on peer-to-peer file sharing and the future of the music industry. Napster made a lot of its users accustomed to having all the music they could want at their fingertips for free. Napster became such a huge hit that many other peer-to-peer services started popping up, and peer-to-peer sharing became a huge part of the internet. Today, there are many different peer-to-peer file sharing services to choose from.

After the RIAA successfully shut down Napster, they started going after individuals in 2003. At first, music executives were opposed to going after their own customers because they thought the legal attacks would alienate consumers and create a backlash. However, the major music executives decided they needed to send a message to its customers. So on June 25, 2003 the RIAA announced they would start pursuing individuals who downloaded music without permission and bring them to court for violating the copyrights of the music labels.

At first, the main challenge the RIAA faced was just how to identify the people who downloaded music without permission and what exactly they had downloaded. An article in Business Week explained how the RIAA went after individuals:

 * The hunt was largely conducted by automated Net crawlers operating around the clock. While the industry is loath to reveal its investigative techniques, RIAA sources say the crawlers began by plugging in names of popular songs, such as Eminem's Lose Yourself, into song search engines such as Kazaa. That search, in turn, produced a list of hundreds, and often thousands, of people offering to share it.  The crawler then conducted a second "user-name" search to find out what other material these individuals were offering (French 2003).

As the article explained, it wasn’t very difficult for the RIAA to come up with many candidates to go after with this technology. However, this process would only return ISP addresses, not the actual person’s name. So the RIAA had to ask the downloader’s Internet service supplier for their actual identity, which sometimes was met with hesitation, but most providers supplied the names when faced with legal actions.

Finally on September 8th 2003, the first lawsuits were filed against individuals for downloading music without permission. The individuals would receive a summons, a copy of the list of charges being filed against them, and a two-page letter explaining why they were being sued. Because there were so many lawsuits filed, the RIAA hoped for as many settlements as possible. To get as many settlements as possible, the RIAA would try to scare the individuals into settling by explaining how much they could sue them for if they took it to court, and how with all the evidence they had built against them that they wouldn’t have a chance to fight the charges. These threats led most of the individuals to reach a settlement outside of court, usually around $5,000 dollars or more each. The individuals also had to sign a contract restraining them from talking about their settlements. These lawsuits laid the groundwork for all the future lawsuits brought against people who downloaded music without permission (French 2003).

Only two cases have ever actually made it in front of a jury. The first case ever to make it to a jury was Jammie Thomas-Rasset vs. the RIAA. The RIAA representatives accused Mrs. Thomas-Rasset of downloading 24 songs off of the popular peer-to-peer sharing service Kazaa. When the case was finally brought to a jury, they ruled against Mrs. Thomas-Rasset, making her pay $1.92 million to six record companies. However, even though Mrs. Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of all charges, the case is about to return to court solely to determine how much damages Mrs. Thomas-Rasset actually has to pay (Itzkoff 2009). The second case to make it in front of a jury involved Joel Tenenbaum, who was accused of downloading 30 songs off of Kazaa without the record labels permission. However, Tenebaum believed he had a strong defense against the record labels. A recent New York Times article explained Tenebaum’s main defense:

 * Nesson (Tenenbaum’s lawyer) argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group -- the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA -- carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court (Reynolds 2008).

Despite a strong effort, the Boston federal jury ruled against Tenenbaum, and ordered him to pay a total of $675,000, or $22,500 per song, to the major record labels for infringing on their copyrights. However, under federal law, the jury could have awarded the record labels up to $4.5 million. Recently the case has been back in court, with both sides appealing every court decision (Reynolds 2008).

The RIAA is motivated by money, so they will try to say or do anything they can to gain more. Just look at the cases they’ve brought to court. As I stated above, the RIAA sued a single mother of four for $1.92 million for only downloading 30 songs. Now how do you think that compares to the punishment she would have faced if she stole two CD’s from a retail store? Her punishment would have been much less harsh, a punishment that she could actually afford to pay at least. However this seems very counter-intuitive. When you steal something, you physically deprive the owner of their own property, but when you download something you just receive a copy of it. So it’s just unrealistic to claim that copying a CD deserves a much harsher punishment than stealing a CD. Just because the RIAA wants to send a message to individuals who download without permission doesn’t mean that they should be able to sue for everything the individual has.

When it comes to the actual lawsuits against individuals for downloading music, it is the record labels, not the artist themselves, who bring the lawsuits to court. All the record labels care about is the money, not what’s actually best for the artist. However, for the most part, new artists have to sign with a label if they want to make it in the music industry, even if they disagree with what the record label thinks is best. A great example of this is the band OK Go. OK Go was once just another small indie rock band, until they released songs such as “Here It Goes Again” and “This Too Shall Pass” which became huge hits, not only because it was a great song but because they came up with some of the most original and popular music videos ever. After this success, OK Go soon signed with the record label EMI, but the partnership didn’t last long. In a misguided attempt to make even more money, EMI decided to block embedding on all of OK Go’s music videos on YouTube, which meant the videos were no longer able to be shown on music and pop culture blogs, new sites, and personal blogs. This action caused a 90% total drop in views of their music videos (Nosowitz 2010).

So, when EMI made OK Go’s music videos less popular, it meant that less people out there knew about OK Go, which in turn meant less people buying tickets and merchandise. This didn’t sit well with OK Go. Soon OK Go started to voice their discontent with EMI. OK Go’s lead singer, Damian Kulash, even wrote an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times. So in April of 2010, OK Go left their record label EMI, and formed their own label called Paracadute Recordings. After leaving EMI and restoring their videos, OK Go saw digital album sales triple and digital track sales jump more than sevenfold (Nosowitz 2010). Benefits of Unauthorized Downloading

For consumers, downloading music without permission can be very beneficial. Unauthorized downloading allows consumers to listen to all different types of music, and find out what they enjoy without it costing them anything. When a consumer first hears a song they have never heard before, they can go download and listen to not only that song, but other songs from that artist. If the consumer finds out that they enjoy the artist’s music they can go out and purchase merchandise, go to their concerts, and buy the artist’s albums. Then they can share that music with friends, and help that artist get even more fans. Another benefit of downloading music without permission is how it allows for a bigger selection for consumers to choose from. Sometimes it can be hard to find exactly what you are looking for if you don’t know who the artist of a song is. Or you can even find songs on peer-to-peer networks that you might not find in stores, such as mash-ups and the music of underground bands. Also, having more exposure to different types of music can help everyone see what they like and if anything inspire them to play their own music.

Even though the RIAA and record companies are against downloading music without permission, it can actually benefit not only the consumers, but the artist as well. For example, if an artist or band is not well known, allowing their music to be shared over the internet would be a good thing because more people would listen to their music because it wouldn’t cost them anything. This exposure would lead to a bigger fan base, and would help them become a success in the music industry, which would allow them to tour full time, sell merchandise, and hopefully get signed to a label.

For more well-known artist and bands, unauthorized downloading can still be beneficial. Mainly, it would help to increase the size of their fan base. If people don’t actually have to pay to listen to a band’s music that they’ve never heard before, they are a lot more likely to listen to them. This would lead to a larger following, more people at their concerts, and an increase in merchandise sales. Also, for most artists, simply getting their music out there and knowing that their fans enjoy listening to their music is what matters, not just the money.

An example of a band that has had success during the digital age is Iron Maiden. Iron Maiden is a heavy metal band that first formed in 1975, and has recently embraced the internet and digital age. That’s what Mr. McIver concluded when he discussed the lessons that the music industry can take from Iron Maiden’s continued success “Invest in the long term. Apply an image. Give the fans what they want. Tour and keep touring. Play the festival circuit. Embrace new technology. Be innovative. Be honest. Be original. Write good songs.” (Pfanner 2010) As McIver concluded, if the artist just gives the listeners what they want, by being creative, new, and original then the fans will support them. For example, Iron Maiden’s manager finds that sales of merchandise can account for more than 20% of a record label’s earning from a band (Pfanner 2010). Hopefully other artists out there will notice Iron Maiden’s success and try to follow in their footsteps by embracing the digital age Objections to Unauthorized Downloading

The RIAA and major record companies, on the other hand, believes the people who download music without permission are ruining the music industry. The RIAA tries to point towards all the people who depend on the music industry for their income, and how they are the ones who are really being affected by the economic losses. They also try to portray people who download music without permission as common criminals who have committed a horrible crime against the public and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Even though the RIAA wants people to believe that unauthorized downloading is the worst thing ever to happen to the music industry and that the people who participate should be faced with gigantic fines, it’s just not the truth. The RIAA and the major record companies have to realize that times are changing, and that people are going to share music over the internet no matter what they do. The major record companies have to start giving consumers a reason to actually buy the albums, instead of just buying a couple tracks off the album or downloading it without permission. For example, the major record companies could offer songs sold only on the CD version, or include special cover art or any other kind of collectable. The major record labels could also try using a subscription type system for those who enjoy downloading as much music as they want. The consumer would pay a flat rate every month, which would allow the consumer access to all the music they could want. There is even evidence that shows that those who download music without permission are actually willing to pay. Jeff Tweedy, the lead singer for the band Wilco, describes an example in an interview, “We were contacted by fans who were excited about the fact that they found [copies of A Ghost Is Born] on P2P networks, but wanted to give something back in good faith. They wanted to send money to express solidarity with the fact that we'd embraced the downloading community. We couldn't take the money ourselves, so they asked if we could pick a charity instead -- we pointed them to Doctors Without Borders, and they ended up receiving about $15,000.” (Jardin 2004) As Tweedy pointed out, fans are willing to support their favorite artists even if they download their music without permission. Other bands have also started releasing their music for free on peer-to-peer networks, such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, to get feedback from their fans.

During this decade, the music industry is going through a shift from physical to digital media. This shift is one of the main reasons why the major music labels have lost so much money recently. With the introductions of ITunes and other digital music vendors, consumers no longer actually have to buy the whole CD if they were only interested in a couple songs. This freedom has changed the whole music industry because now if they want an album to sell they must give their fans a reason to buy the album itself instead of just a couple songs. According to the RIAA shipment database, from 2004 to 2008 the amount of single tracks sold in the United States increased by 669% while the number of album sales dropped 42%. Consequently, the income of the major record labels suffered because single tracks are less profitable than the actual album. If downloading music without permission is such a huge problem, it would be expected to see a hurt in digital sales, but they are booming instead.

Conclusion
During the last decade, the music industry has entered into the digital age, where the major record companies must adapt to make a profit. The major record companies must start listening to not only their own artist, but the fans as well. Going after fans with outrageous lawsuits won’t get the major record companies anywhere. It’s impractical for the RIAA to believe they can stop everyone from sharing their music with others. They need to realize they’re fighting a losing battle and how unauthorized downloading can actually help their artists. The major record labels have to give their consumers a reason to buy the albums and songs, and realize that the fans will support an artist if they enjoy their music. In the end, the RIAA and the major record companies must realize that their market has changed and they must adapt to it, or else they will just continue to lose money.

title: Owning the Intangible/Sharing Music


text:
Owning the Intangible/Music Sampling

Introduction
The bass line loops. You feel the reverberations emanating from the stereo. You’re thinking, “Wow, Public Enemy has amazing beats.” But you never stop to consider, did Clyde Stubblefield – “The Funky Drummer” who played with James Brown from 1965 to 1970 – ever get any credit for coming up with this “fat” beat that so many contemporary artists sample? (Frazen & McLeod, 2009) In reality, the average listener would not even consider this question – “[Stubblefield’s] name never appears on any of those compositional credits, his name is not part of the legal legacy of all of those great tunes he played on, he doesn’t get royalties.” (Jeff Chang, Frazen & McLeod, 2009)

Is this right? What with all the propaganda and litigations going on, more of the credit and money must be going to the author-creators. However, the American copyright laws have, for the longest time, been negligent of these original creators:

Copyright law in the United States is primarily concerned with protecting the pecuniary interests of copyright owners rather than the moral rights of author-creators. (Reilly, 2008)

With this kind of legal background – what are we protecting exactly? Not the rights of the original creator, apparently. As a result, neither are we focusing on the ethics of protecting these creative works. In fact, copyright laws are laws concerned with the economic factors; they are in existence to give an economic benefit those who own the copyright (Patry, 2009). This is further seen in the exploitation of the legal system, even in other areas of the entertainment industry, where corporations come down hard on people and pressure them into settling outside of court to avoid the hassle of going to court. ("Law professor fires," 2008)

What we need is a system that gives due credit to those author-artists who put the effort into creating something and releasing it to the public domain; a system that lets the Clyde Stubblefields be known; a system that operates based on more than the economic gains. And this will call for a revolution.

Current Approaches
Section 1101 in United States Copyright Laws, that currently prohibits music sampling, begins with:

 * (a) Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved

This section highlights the original intentions of the Copyright Laws – note that courses of actions are to be taken if the “performer or performers involved” feel as if their copyright had been infringed upon.

In the 1991 case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v Warner Bros. Records Inc, Biz Markie, under Warner Bros. Records, was sued by Grand Upright Music Ltd and Gilbert O’Sullivan for sampling the latter without permission. Gilbert O’Sullivan served as a witness for this case and showed significant emotional distress for his work being used in such a way that does not comply with the context in which he wanted people to see his music. At the end of the case, Judge Kevin Duffy began his opinion with, “Thou shalt not steal.” (“Grand upright v. warner,” N.D.) and proceeded on to condemn sampling without license as theft. This was the landmark case that mandated artists and publishers to clear all their samples before any publications.

Fast forward fourteen years, in 2005, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v Dimension Films is the case in question. In this case, N.W.A sampled a two second guitar chord from Funkadelic (Bridgeport), lowered the pitch and looped it five times. The first ruling stated that this was not in violation of any copyright laws. However, on appeal, a very dissimilar ruling was passed. This time the judge, Ralph Guy, began his opinion with, “Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.” (“Bridgeport music v. dimension films, et al,” N.D.)

But it is stifling creativity in unnecessary ways.

The Copyright Laws were passed at first to ensure that author-artists were protected enough so that they would share their creations and expressions of particular ideas with the public (Patry, 2009). This ensures the public good as more author-artists would then share their original representations and the people would then benefit from seeing a wide variety of expressions, perhaps through such exposure becomes, in turn, inspired to create and to add to the public domain as well. Such a cycle not only adds to the public library of resources, but also the culture of the nation or the age.

However, our economic copyright laws have evolved (or devolved, depending on your perspective) to put the originally protected “Little Guys,” referring to the author-artists, in a position of less importance than their “Big Daddies,” or their record labels (Gaylor, Cross, Thwin, Din, & Brochner, 2008). Interestingly enough, record labels only began hounding cases of music sampling in the hip-hop genre after the genre received more exposure, and thus more monetary gains (Frazen & McLeod, 2009).

The Copyright Laws are no longer relevant enough to carry out its original intentions. In fact, it can almost be said that the section is open to abuse, no longer built to protect the creative author-artists.

Our current copyright laws are not enough to encourage our rapidly growing culture to flourish, especially not at its current pace with the technological booms, and it is difficult for such a revolution to come by as to completely alter the current laws for the better. But, at the very least, our laws must not stifle the probable future changes that our culture will inevitably experience. Otherwise, the laws are counterproductive and thus rendered invalid.

Perspectives – Sampling and Sampled Artists
When we talk about sampling, we must discuss the hip-hop genre in greater detail – after all, their musical culture fueled the beginnings of the controversy. We must also explore the hip-hop genre’s perspective to fully understand the basis of their actions before we deem them wrong:

 * Sampling is a way of paying homage to older artists; it is also a kind of musical archeology, an archaeology that is significant when it is applied to black music which, as a result of music industry fostered conditions, has a notoriously short shelf life.  (McLeod, 2001)

From the self-evident tone, we can see that there is obviously an unsaid agreement that binds the hip-hop genre and its artists together. They understand that the purpose of sampling is to further individual work, and in turn the entire genre’s sound, and not to take what is not theirs for themselves.

Furthermore, one of the arguments against sampling is that the sampling artist seems to be simply taking what another artist has perfected and adding nothing to it. Theft. However, the sampling artists offer a different perspective A single sample may take hours upon hours of listening to find, and that sample may just be a three second section that’s put into a new song that gives the listeners a different perspective on the sampled section (Frazen & McLeod, 2009). Sampling is not as simple as some may think and in no way is it uncreative. The multitudes of author-artists adding on to a single sample with their own music should really be seen as a great cultural collaboration.

The current copyright laws that limit samples by mandating the clearing and licensing of any samples on any given track of a CD about to be published not only restricts the creativity of author-artists, but also stifles the growth of our culture and hinders our potential.

Yes, we have evolved under the suffocating pressure with different outlets such as distorting the samples so much, the record labels no longer can recognize the sound, as best described by Q-bert, a member of the turntablist crew Invisibl Skratch Piklz, “if you can make it not theirs, it’s yours.” (McLeod, 2001) Or live instrumentalists were hired to recreate the sounds that were unable to be cleared. But should these actions be necessary?

In Stubblefield’s interview on Copyright Criminals, the DVD released in 2009, he stated that he was not paid a dime and said that he was surprised when he was informed that he was the world’s most sampled drummer. However, he was extremely clear that he was not in the business for the money. He was flattered that people liked his drum riffs so much, but he was the most visibly emotional when he spoke about never getting thanked, “not once!” (Clyde Stubblefield, Frazen & McLeod, 2009)

Now it seems that the real problem lies not in the money the corporation brings in via litigation, but with due credit giving. Therefore, yes, there had to be a time where the law cracked down on sampling. There needed to be a time where people published their work containing samples by distorting the sample, recreating the sample with live instruments, clearing the samples or risking a lawsuit. People needed to learn the basic lesson that paying homage to an artist is a good thing, but that others who are not enthusiasts cannot see this homage unless the sampled artists are named. But this time does not need to last. Its purpose has been served and now we are ready to move on.

The Solution We Are Looking For
There is a gap.

There is a cleft between what our current copyright laws suggest as solutions and a solution that will contribute to our musical culture. What we need to recognize is that there is a fundamental difference between the actual musical, creative culture and the culture that our contemporary copyright laws is building.

The underlying difference is the other side’s perspective. The copyright laws are protecting the economic benefits of the copyright owners; whereas Tthe creative culture is bustling with free flowing ideas with author-artists willing to share and cries out for the notion of moral rights. Moral rights is the author-artist’s ability to “control the eventual fate of their works.” (Rosenblatt, 1998) The originators get the right to decide what they want, or do not want, to have done to their art. The artists’ moral rights to his or her work extends beyond simply economic transactions – they will always, on this level, own their creation. This will also benefit our culture as more cultural heritages fall into the public domain quicker as the protection for the art piece ends with the death of the author-creator.

When moral rights is in control, the “Little Guys” will be back on top. An example of this was when Radiohead decided to publish their tracks on the Internet, and Amplive remixed the album soon after and uploaded the remixed album onto the web for free. He was hunted down with a cease and desist letter a day after the upload. Radiohead was not responsible for the cease and desist letter – their label was. Radiohead, in the end, convinced their label to drop the case and Amplive was not prosecuted (Gaylor, Cross, Thwin, Din, & Brochner, 2008).

However, we cannot simply ignore the amount of time and money that record labels put into their projects. Some of the cases may seem to only serve to generate revenue, as in the example of Radiohead’s label, but we must also look at cases where the corporations really do deserve compensation for their input. This side of the puzzle must be addressed with a compromise.

Yet this compromise must not allow us to make the same mistakes we have already spent decades making. Ultimately, moral rights, that allow the artists to make the final call on whether to pursue litigation or not, should outweigh the original copyright laws that allows litigation without the permission of the original author-creator. The compromise will come from when a lawsuit does ensue – the copyright owners and the author-creator can split the compensation 70%-30%, with the copyright owners reaping the majority. This would be as close to fair as we can get after our revolution because the copyright owners will get their share of the money, and the 30% will be the rightful contribution to the author-creators who originally contributed their works of art, and without whom, the copyright owners will have nothing to reap anyway. There should also be an option for author-creators who would like to simply give permission for their label to pursue a lawsuit, with no monetary gains in mind to forfeit the 30%.

Finally, it is important to remember that copyright in the music industry is not dead. Moral rights and copyrights are not mutually exclusive. What we are headed for, hopefully, is a happy medium, where the author-creator has the final say in how they want their art treated, and where copyright owners can still pursue litigations with the permission of the author-creators (Kwall, 2010). With a contract signed between an artist and a record label, the artist may agree to not enforce their moral rights, or they may need to go through more legal processes to assert their moral rights, before they can be enforced ("Moral rights (copyright law)," 2010).

So, when moral rights is enforced, the individual or individuals who were involved with the actual deliverance of the performance have the say in what they want done with their work – and wouldn’t that be the ideal situation? When those who were meant to have the right, have the right? With the creative author-artist in control of the fate of his or her art instead of a relatively more distant corporation, our culture will have the chance to evolve at a pace that’s more parallel to the pace at which the technology is moving.

Conclusion
For decades, our copyright laws have merely sufficed. But now they have the option of being refurbished. In the case of music sampling, the corporations used to have a much greater say than the author-artists who create the art that we so enjoy, and, because of that, we have been gratuitously limited.

Music sampling is a way of expression as well as any other kind of creation. It is not simply the taking of someone else’s idea. The amount of time taken into finding the sample, sometimes an extremely short one, the possible distortions, and the new context in which it is put all should generate new respect for this new technique. A different perspective is added to a sample as it is put into a different track – a new light in which to see the old.

It is also important to keep in mind the reason behind sampling. Especially in the hip-hop genre, one can see sampling as a way of paying homage to the sampled artist because their creation was so timeless and “fat” that it just does not compare to what we have nowadays (Frazen & McLeod. 2009). The intentions are not to steal or to deface. In fact, the restrictions on sampling have forced artists to distort the sample they want to honor and transfigure it into something completely unrecognizable, thus making the laws seem almost counterproductive.

However, the restrictions were not without merit. They helped us realize more ways that we can create – through distortion or live music recreation. Also, they reminded us that giving due credit is a great part of paying homage. But these lessons have been learned, and now that we are all the wiser, we can then move forward and create with greater ferocity and velocity with less boundaries and more creativity.

And so we come to our hopeful conclusion: Moral rights. With this, we can return the creative power to the original author-creators. Yes, there is the chance that some artists may choose to opt out on having their tracks sampled, and yes, there are going to artists that want monetary compensation. But at the same time, yes, we can, as a generation, afford that. That is a small price to pay to have the say re-instilled upon our original creative forces.

When those who were meant to have to right, have the right.

Although the corporations are, too, not without merit. The time and money that they spend on publishing the music and promoting the artist cannot go ignored. So we have reached a compromise. Author-creators may agree to not enforce their moral rights, and that if they are to assert their rights, there are legal steps that must be taken before their moral rights are enforced. Finally, when a lawsuit is in question, the author-creator has the final say in whether or not to pursue the litigation. There is a split of 70%-30% of the monetary compensation between the copyright holder and the moral rights holder, with the 70% going to the copyrights holder. There is also an alternative for any author-creators who simply wish to authorize the copyright holder to pursue legal action and want no monetary gains in return, with a forfeit.

With moral rights, a revolution has arrived. We can create a freer culture and in turn, help our current blossoming musical generation flourish. With the power returned to the original creators of the art that were for so long controlled by the corporations behind their distribution, we can say that our culture is in better hands. Finally, with the lessons from the past and the freedom of the future, our generation can explode with renewed creativity in the music realm and take us to a new level of experience.

Hopefully, this revolution spreads, just as it had from the Visual Artists Rights Act, that were the origins of moral rights in the United States, to the music industry (Kwall, 2010). This gloriously infectious notion of giving the original author-creators the say in what they want done to their art will unfurl and circulate until all aspects of the art will allow for this relationship between the creator and his or her “brain child.” Not only will this further encourage new creations, with the combination of moral rights and copyrights, it will also serve to contribute to more than just our musical culture – but to the culture of our generation.

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

title: Owning the Intangible/Music Sampling


text:
User talk:Pankaj khedkar

 Hello Pankaj khedkar, 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. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pankaj khedkar


text:
User talk:JAnastasiade

 Hello JAnastasiade, 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. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:JAnastasiade


text:
User talk:Sarahrejoice

 Hello Sarahrejoice, 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. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sarahrejoice


text:
User talk:Captainj21

 Hello Captainj21, 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. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Captainj21


text: Category:Wikilitigation

title: Category:Wikilitigation


text:
Ludic Science

"Is game design an art or science?"

If you don't know what Ludic Science is, then the joke's on you!

Useful links

 * Board Game Geek
 * Tilt Factor
 * Games for Social Change (video interview with Mary Flanagan)

title: Ludic Science


text:
User:Egm6321.f10.team2.patterson/Homework 7

= Problem 8: Derivation of a Specialized Case of the Binomial Series =

Given
Given the following binomial series equation:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \left( x +y \right)^r=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\dbinom{r}{k}x^{r-k}y^{k} $$ (eq 8.1)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

where the binomial coefficient, "r choose k", is defined as follows:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \dbinom{r}{k}=\frac{r(r-1)\cdots (r-k+1)}{k!} $$ (eq 8.2)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

and r is a real number, $$\displaystyle r \in \mathbb{R}$$

Derive the following equation:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \left(1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\alpha_{i}x^{i}
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$ (eq 8.3)
 *
 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \alpha_i = \frac{1 \cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot \ldots \cdot (2i - 1)}{2 \cdot 4 \cdot 6 \cdot \ldots \cdot (2i)} $$ (eq 8.4)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Solution
In comparing the left hand side (LHS) of Eq 8.3 to the LHS of Eq 8.1, the following values for r, x, and y are obtained:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle r=-\frac{1}{2}, \qquad x=1, \qquad y=(-x) $$ (eq 8.5)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Plugging these values into the right hand side (RHS) of Eq. 8.1 yields the following:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

\left( 1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\dbinom{-\frac{1}{2}}{k}1^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}-k\right)}(-x)^{k}

$$ (eq 8.6)
 *
 * }

Note that for every k

$$ \displaystyle 1^{\left(-\frac{1}{2}-k\right)}=1,\quad \forall k $$

Next, the binomial coefficient in Eq 8.6 is expanded by using Eq 8.2 and the values in Eq 8.5 to yield the following:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

\left( 1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{-\frac{1}{2}(-\frac{1}{2}-1)(-\frac{1}{2}-2)\cdots (-\frac{1}{2}-k+1)}{k!} (-x)^{k}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{-\frac{1}{2}(-\frac{3}{2})(-\frac{5}{2})\cdots (-k+\frac{1}{2})}{k!} (-x)^{k}

$$ (eq 8.7)
 *
 * }

Next, factor out -1/2 from each term in the numerator and change the summation index k to i as follows:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \left( 1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)[1]\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)[3]\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)[5]\cdots \left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)[2i-1]}{i!} (-x)^{i}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)(-x)\right)^i\frac{(1)(3)(5)\cdots (2i-1)}{i!} $$ (eq 8.8)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Eq 8.8 can be simplified as follows:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \left( 1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^i}{2^i}\cdot \frac{(1)(3)(5)\cdots (2i-1)}{i!} $$ (eq 8.9)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Note that the terms in the denominator can be rewritten as:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle (2^i)(i!)=\underbrace{(2\cdot 2\cdot 2\cdot \ldots)}_{i\ times}(1\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdot \ldots \cdot i)=2\cdot 4\cdot 6\cdot \ldots \cdot 2i $$ (eq 8.10)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

The RHS of Eq 8.10 can replace the denominator of Eq 8.9 resulting in the equation found in Eq 8.3:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle \begin{align} \left( 1-x \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\cdot \underbrace{\frac{(1)(3)(5)\cdots (2i-1)}{2\cdot 4\cdot 6\cdot \ldots \cdot 2i}}_{\alpha_i}x^i
 * style="width:90%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:90%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

\end{align}$$ (eq 8.11)
 *
 * }

 * The following link was consulted after this problem was solved in an attempt to provide the most clear and comprehensive presentation :

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Egm6321.f09.Team1/HW5&oldid=510466#Problem_6:_Binomial_Series


text:
User talk:Rsml

 Hello Rsml, 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. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Human Legacy Course
Hello Rsml! I am very glad that you have decided to join my Human Legacy course and I'm very sorry that it took so long for me to respond. If you would like to have an orientation session so that you can get the basics of what will be going on with this course and any other questions that you may have, please tell me when you are free and I will create the class. In order to come to these classes, you must be a member of WiZiQ. I hope to hear from you very soon and if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask! :)

--MrABlair23 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rsml! I know that it has been a while, however, I would like to invite you to join my Human Legacy Course. If you are interested, please contact me on my talk page and we can set up an orientation session. I hope to see you soon! :) --MrABlair23 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rsml


text:
User:Ajmint

Hello, I am ajmint.

title: User:Ajmint


text: Category:Wikiversity pages with incorrect protection templates


text: Category:Wikiversity protected templates


text: Category:Wikiversity semi-protected templates


text:
Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2010/Violent crime motivation

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Bishopgore123

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikiversity. Your test on the page Chris smitham worked, and it has been reverted. Please take a look at the help page to learn more about contributing to this project. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Ruy Pugliesi ◥ 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bishopgore123


text:
Density Functional Theory

Density Functional Theory (DFT) is one of the most popular methods of quantum mechanics. Today it is applied to calculate several molecular properties, for example, binding energies of molecules in chemistry and band structures of solids in physics, but also in other areas considered more distant to quantum mechanics such as biology and mineralogy.

An Introduction
DFT owes its versatility to the generality of its fundamental concepts and its flexibility to implement them. But, despite its flexibility and generality, DFT is completely based on a rigorous conceptual structure.

In quantum mechanics, all information on a system is contained in its wave function, Ψ. The usual method of quantum mechanics using Schrödinger's equation (SE) can be summarized by the following sequence

$$ \nu(r) \Rightarrow \Psi(r_1,r_2,..., r_N) \Rightarrow observables $$

First the system is specified by choosing the potential ν(r) and it is inserted into Schrödinger's equation. Then this equation is solved for the wave function and finally observables are calculated by taking the expected values of operators with this wave function. Electron density is an observable which is calculated in the following manner

$$ \rho(r)= N \int d^3 r_2 \int d^3 r_3 ... \int d^3 r_N \Psi^* (r_1,r_2,...,r_N) \Psi(r_1,r_2,...,r_N)$$

Several powerful methods have been developed to solve Schrödinger's equation to treat problems of multiple bodies, such as methods of configuration interaction (CI) in chemistry. These methods require high computational resources and therefore, they are difficult to treat large and complex systems, such as the calculation of chemical properties of a 100-atoms molecule with full CI.

It is here where DFT provides a viable alternative, less accurate perhaps, but more versatile. DFT methods are cheap alternatives to include part of electron correlation. The best DFT methods achieve greater accuracy than Hartree Fock theory with only a modest increase in computational cost.

Electronic, magnetic and structural properties of materials have been calculated using DFT and the scope of DFT contributions to the science of molecules is reflected by the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1998, which the Nobel Foundation awarded to Walter Kohn, one of the founding fathers of the DFT and to John Pople, who implemented DFT in computational chemistry.

Density Functional Theory aims to calculate the electronic ground-state energy of a system of N electrons only through its density, without prior knowledge of the wave function of the system. Thus, the 3N-dimensional problem is reduced to a three-dimensional problem and, at first, it should be easier to solve. DFT can be summarized by the sequence

$$ \rho(r) \Rightarrow \Psi(r_1,r_2,..., r_N) \Rightarrow \nu(r) $$

In other words, knowledge of ρ(r) implies knowledge of the wave function and the potential, and hence of all other observables.

Software
There are several programs that implement DFT in their routines. Here is a list of the most common ones.

Firefly. http://classic.chem.msu.su/gran/gamess/ Gamess-UK. http://www.cse.scitech.ac.uk/ccg/software/gamess-uk/ Gamess-US. http://www.msg.chem.iastate.edu/gamess/ Gaussian. http://www.gaussian.com ORCA. http://www.thch.uni-bonn.de/tc/orca/

title: Density Functional Theory


text:
User:S.emp/Week 6, lecture 6

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherent; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="background-color: PaleGreen; border: 1px solid #777777; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" colspan="2" |

=Week 6, Lecture 6=

Personal control beliefs
According to Reeve (2009) people want to have control over their environment. This desire to exercise person control is predicted on a person’s belief that they have the power to produce favourable results. In anticipating events and outcomes, people rely on their past experiences and personal resources to make forecasts about what the future holds and how they will cope with what is to come. Before reading this information and listening to the lecture I had never thought of myself as someone who needed control, however, the more I thought about it the more I realised that I need control to some extent in my life, for example, while I like the idea of surprises, I do not like them for myself, as I want to know what I am getting and if I will like it and this unknown feeling makes me extremely impatient. Next year my boyfriend and I are moving to the Gold Coast and I am becoming more nervous each day, as I do not have complete control over what will happen. While I know where I will be living, the name of the university and where I will be working, I do not know the environment or the people as I do not have any past experiences to help more forecast the future and that is scary.

Expectancy is the subjective prediction of how likely it is that an event will occur. Reeve (2009) states that there are two types of expectations that are important when determining how someone will act. Efficacy expectations are considerations of personal skills or attributes. Questions are asked such as can I do it? These expectations influence whether a person will perform in a certain way. Outcome expectations are considerations of the outcome of the event/behaviour. Questions are asked such as, will what I do work? Reeve (2009) states that when a person beliefs that they will be able to do something, that they have the skills to complete the task and they know what they have to do to have the desired outcome, they will act, this is called empowerment.

Self-efficacy is a person’s ability to use their own personal resources well under varied and difficult circumstances. Self efficacy is determined by a person’s personal behaviour history, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and their physiological state. Self efficacy effects a person’s behaviour in regards to choice, effort and persistence, thinking and decision making and emotionally.

Mastery beliefs are also another area of personal control beliefs that we learnt about this week. Mastery beliefs are the extent of perceived control a person has over attaining desirable outcomes and preventing aversive ones. When personal beliefs are strong there is a strong link between actions and outcomes but the weaker the beliefs the weaker the link between these two factors. When reading about self-efficacy and mastery beliefs I got a little confused between the two so I examined the difference between the two. From what I learnt mastery beliefs is about a person’s locus of causality, while self-efficacy is about skills.

Learned helplessness is the psychological state that occurs when a person expects that life’s outcomes are uncontrollable. Learned helplessness is learned and people who feel helpless do not believe that they can attain what they want or prevent something from occurring. An individual who has learned to feel helpless experiences three main effects, loss of motivation, learning loses and emotional loses. I find the concept of learned helplessness fascinating, as I can not imagine getting into the frame of mind that I am helpless in life. However, it can be extremely common, especially in people who experience domestic violence. Individual’s who suffer from domestic violence become use to the violence, they become almost paralysed, as they have learnt to be helpless (Perilla, Bakeman & Norris, 1994).

Explanatory style helps individual explain why bad things happen to them. According to Reeve (2009) there are two explanatory styles, optimistic explanatory style and pessimistic explanatory style. Optimistic explanatory style is where an individual will explain bad things by using attributions that are unstable and controllable. These people take credit for things going their way and accept little to no blame for things that go against them. Pessimistic explanatory style is where an individual will explain bad things by using attributions that are stable and uncontrollable. This style leads individuals towards giving up when there is setbacks or failure. Another interesting fact on people who have a pessimistic explanatory style is that they are generally at a higher risk of physical illness (Lin & Peterson, 1990). I think that interesting that a person’s way of thinking not only affects their outlook on life, but their health as well.

The Self
Self concept is a person’s mental representation of themselves. Self-construct is constructed from an individual’s experiences and from reflection. Self-schemas direct and energise behaviour, they are also constructed from feedback that a person receives daily that reveal their personal attributes, characteristics and preferences. The self-concept is a collection of domain-specific self-schemas. Self-schemas are cognitive generalisations about the self that are domain specific and learned from past experiences.

Cognitive Dissonance is when beliefs about who is self is and what the self does are inconsistent, for example, believing that everyone should recycle, however, the person does not recycle. Cognitive dissonance arrises when people feel incompetent, immortal or unreasonable. If the inconsistency is intense then it could produce motivational properties and the people may seek out ways to eliminate or reduce the psychological discomfort. Dissonance arousing situations are brought about by four main experiences, choice (individuals choose between alternatives), insufficient justification (how individual’s explain their behaviours they have little or no outside prompting), effort justification (the amount of effort a person puts in much also equal the amount of important a person has on that belief) and new information (individual’s experience so much new information that they give themselves so many opportunities to contradict their beliefs).

Identity is another factor that effects a person’s self. Identity is the way the self relates to society and who a person is within a cultural context and in social groups. For example, when a person becomes a mother this concept begins to define their self to some extent. These roles can direct a person towards some behaviours (identity-confirming behaviours) and to shun other behaviours (identity-disconfirming behaviours). When people take on a role they behave in a certain way that fits in the context of their environment and if they change roles than their behaviour also changes. People all have numerous identities and people pick which identity they will take on based in a certain situation. For example, I am a student, a sister, a daughter, a counsellor, a friend and a Woolworth’s supervisor. In each role I change my behaviour to work within that environment for example, as a supervisor I am outgoing and outspoken, as a student I am quiet and as a daughter I am spoilt. I think that it is vital that people are able to change their identity to some extent in different situations, while the main aspects of ourselves are the same, certain things need to change otherwise we would not fit well in certain situations or environments.

title: User:S.emp/Week 6, lecture 6


text:
User:S.emp/Week 7, tutoral 3

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherent; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="background-color: lavender; border: 1px solid #777777; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" colspan="2" |

=Week 7, Tutorial 3=

Sadly this week I was still sick and unable to go to the tutorial. I finally went to the doctor and found out why I had been feeling sick for weeks, I have a chest infection and I am on the verge of getting pneumonia. So I had to do the turorial by myself again.

In regards to what motivates a person to go to university I came up with a few reasons
 * career prospects
 * thirst of knowlegde
 * family pressure/expectations
 * More time to explore who you are and what you want to do before you go out into the 'big bad' World.

Sadly I was unable to do the surveys as the link says 'page not found'.

In my opinion learned helplessness is when a person learns from past experiences that life's outcomes are uncontrollable. While learned optimism is when a person learns from past experiences to expect the best outcomes in life as they are controllable. Learned optimism is done by consciously challenging any negative talk that one may have.

When I did the Learned Optimism test (Seligman, 1991), my score said that I was average. I always try to see the good in people and I always try to help others, however, I do tend to blame myself when something goes wrong.

title: User:S.emp/Week 7, tutoral 3


text:
Wikiversity:Notices for custodians/Archive/3

Japanese copyvio
It seems we have bulk uploading of copyrighted popular japanese song lyrics from User:Okanosato. (now blocked for 6 months) I think I've deleted all the copyright material, but please also see: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Okanosato. Mostly it consists of sports scores. Also, a wikipedia sysop who reads the language has informed me that the talk page posts from this user appear to be Google translated and not from a native speaker of the language. There has been no response from requests by custodians to discuss these issues. see questions from custodians dating back to March at User_talk:Okanosato and last Sept. - Oct.   --mikeu talk 12:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This has been an ongoing problem, please also see: Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/4 and Colloquium/archives/September_2008 --mikeu talk 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I think this is still a problem since the 6 month block ran out. has been undoing attempts to communicate on his/her talk page and has been continuuing to add possible copyvio material into user sub-pages in Japanese.  -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for input from the Japanese Wikiversity. -- dark lama  22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request watcher
If we're going to be using these sorts of rangeblocks, I think we should talk to commons:User:Bryan about setting up a category watching bot to bump unblock requests on a page all custodians can add to their watchlists. I suspect the Moulton situation will be with us for a while, and if so we should have a good method of sniffing out unblock requests. Checkusers will in most cases be able to see if the requests are from Moulton. --SB_Johnny talk 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that a bot would be desirable. I did not see any mention of category watching for the bots run by Bryan...  For now, custodians should check Category:Requests for unblock.  Please note, that we also need to make sure that the user_talk pages of blocked ips have a template with instructions on how to use the unblock request.  --mikeu talk 13:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am running tests for an unblock request watcher bot. User:Mu301Bot checks for pages listed in Category:Requests for unblock and edits User:Mu301Bot/Requests for unblock if a page has been added to or removed from the category since the last time the bot checked.  No edits are made to the userpage if the category has not changed.  If you watchlist that userpage you can tell if there are any outstanding requests by looking for a number greater than 0 in the edit summary, and then click on the page to read the username.  Any questions or comments about the way this works?    --mikeu talk 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: the bot is now checking every hour, at 10 min. past the hour. --mikeu talk 15:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Mu301Bot/Requests for unblock for more information and to discuss. --mikeu talk 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The testing phase of the request watcher is now complete and custodians should watchlist User:Mu301Bot/Requests for unblock. --mikeu talk 17:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion
I ran a bot to search for pages that only contain whas or we and then tag them for speedy deletion. Please have a look at the list at User:Mu301Bot/Candidates for speedy deletion. Most of these were originally created with just the template or were test edits that were blanked and tagged. But, I did find one page where an anon blanked some content, and it was later templated with expand. I'm looking for other custodians to review the selection of pages. --mikeu talk 23:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I now have a bot updating User:Mu301Bot/Candidates_for_speedy_deletion and User:Mu301Bot/Contested_candidates_for_deletion once per day. Custodians are requested to watchlist these pages to keep up with requests.  Please also let me know if this is of use or something that we should have another method for.  --mikeu talk 17:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

transwiki from wikipedia
FYI: there is a w:Template:TransWikiversity that adds pages to w:Category:Articles to be transwikied to Wikiversity. Also, please note, that there is a w:Template:copy to Wikiversity and (an uncreated) w:Category:Copy to Wikiversity. Please watchlist Import to keep an eye out for wikipedia articles that are out of scope there, but might be of interest to wv. We might want to mention these templates and categories at wp to alert them that there might be some articles that would be out of scope for wp, but within our project. --mikeu talk 14:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think we should try to get a wikiversity-transwiki option listed on w:Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard as well (new page to me!)... I'll leave a note on the talk. --SB_Johnny talk 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've suggested a merge of the two templates at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion. --mikeu talk 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The template to use on wikipedia is w:Template:Copy to Wikiversity which adds articles to w:Category:Copy to Wikiversity. --mikeu talk 13:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

template @wikipedia
I've created a new category at w:Category:Wikiversity templates and tried to add all the wv related templates to it. If we want to attract editors or import content from wp we really should try to get more organized about coordinating things there. --mikeu talk 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Proxies
I'd like to remind everyone of a long neglected page at Open Proxies. We also have openproxy which should be used on the user talk page of the blocked ip. There has been some recent activity by custodians to block these open proxies. Not all of them have the template on the talk page. I'd suggest we request a bot to go through the logs and template the talk pages of blocked ips that lack the template. We might also want to look into setting up a page like meta:Meta:Open_proxy_detection which is updated by a bot. --mikeu talk 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter
We have created a Wikiversity twitter account. If you would like to contribute, let us know. Once we have a few tweets, we can promote more widely. See: Twitter. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OzonAction
Hey

so I believe this article is a copyright violation, in fact, I checked on Wikipedia OzonAction Programme and there is a similar tag someone put on it. If you follow even the first link you will find that the information is entirely lifted. The markup in the WV article even has templates from WP, so I imagine whoever posted it in WP, upon finding it getting removed, moved it to WV. - Theornamentalist 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:188.17.67.125
has been creating a lot of unnecessary, single-page categories that appear to have no relevance to one another. What should be done about them? TeleComNasSprVen 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Unofyjan blocked
Link spam / vandalism. Diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. Blocked for two hours incl. IP & user creation, rolled back all of the above. I'm not expecting the user to return after two hours, and I want to avoid blocking a school IP, but feel free to extend the block if you feel it's appropriate. --Draicone (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * You failed to put a block notice, a welcome notice, or anything really. You stated you were going to take over welcoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a message to their talk page, but I'm not going to use a welcome template for a link spam bot. Spam continued when the block expired; I've blocked the user for a month. --Draicone (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a global Mediawiki spam bot with no intention of IP editing -, I'm extending block to indefinite for the account but without the IP restriction. --Draicone (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Userspace page with personal names
Please see this page and the discussion here. It is my opinion that all of the revisions that include personal information should be struck (hidden) from the page history and that it should be left in the state that it is in now with a note indicating that information has been removed. But I'd like a second opinion on this. I've left one prior revision in place, for now, so that it can be reviewed by non-custodians. Fwiw, I discussed this with User:Moulton in irc and he requested an opportunity to defend his inclusion of this information in the page. As I noted on his talk page, this seems to me to be a clear violation of WV:Privacy. --mikeu talk 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Update: I've received a complaint regarding the above page here. At this point I think we need to open a Review to clarify how WV:Privacy applies to pages such as this. --mikeu talk 12:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Note: This issue was resolved by fiat from the Dark Junta. Upon review, the above complaint was dismissed as "silly."  —Moulton 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 * See discussion at Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence --mikeu talk 12:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning?
? I don't know if disabling your own page is accetable or not, but certainly that's not the way to express yourself. Magister Mathematicae 21:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 month, but not for this reason in particular. --SB_Johnny talk 00:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WV:Privacy and blocks
User:Moulton and User:Caprice have been temporarily blocked for violations of WV:Privacy until such time as there is an agreement to abide by policy or the community changes the policy. --mikeu talk 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely the community will arrive at a consensus either to change the wording of the policy or to even agree on what the current wording means. In the meantime, is there some reason Moulton and Caprice have not been afforded a fair hearing by a jury of their peers to determine if there has even been a breach, under any reading of the policy as currently worded? —NotNewYorkBrad 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks
I'm performing some rather drastic rangeblocks in order to prevent further disruption by my friend Moulton. There are other ranges that will need to be blocked too, since he apparently has access to other dynamic ranges. I'm not quite "hard blocking", but I am preventing account creation on these ranges for now.

I'm going with the range blocks because I know that Moulton can easily switch IPs within a few seconds, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will do what he can to go around these blocks.

I'd like to make it clear what I mean by disruption here:
 * 1) Moulton has over the past month or so made it a point to call out various Wikimedia contributors using their "real" names, when almost everyone else has expressed their desire that he not do so. This ends up creating needless chores for custodians (revision deletions, etc.), and he's quite aware of that. This also doesn't seem to serve any purpose that benefits the WV community or mission (quite the contrary).
 * 2) Moulton has been consistently cluttering up the public fora with contributions which seem to have little value other than to his own personal agenda, to the point that he has effectively hijacked them and made them useless for everyone else (particularly new users, who I suspect might see the public fora and have a "WTF" experience that discourages them).
 * 3) Moulton has been attempting to educate certain individuals who are "regulars" here, and while I absolutely have "good faith" in his motives, his pedagogical approach is inappropriately confrontational and ends up causing more disruption as he "follows" these people from forum to forum.
 * 4) Finally, Moulton seems to hold "community preference" in extreme disregard (if not scorn), which is, frankly, completely toxic to a volunteer-oriented and consensus-driven community. We need to feel free to do our work, and feel free to express our needs and desires without being subject to snide and sarcastic comment at every turn.

I'd also like to make it clear that I am not "assuming bad faith" here: on the contrary, I believe that Moulton really does want to educate people, help people understand themselves better, and introduce people to the scientific way of thinking. The problem with Moulton is that he tends to take the low road and "act even crazier the people he thinks are crazy" in order to make his (valid and good) points. He just doesn't seem to mind that this approach puts a burden on well-meaning people who don't really want that burden.

I think we should change the "blocked editor" text to point to Blocked ranges on the off chance that somebody gets caught up in this and wants to know why. --SB_Johnny talk 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnny, if you admit that Moulton is your friend, then you would be advised against taking any administrative action either for him or against him. If you act against your friend, you jeopardize your friendship and you still can be accused of going easier on your friend than you would have, had the damnable miscreant been some random doofus who means nothing to you.  And of course, as soon as you start to negotiate terms to remove the sweeping rangeblocks, your critics will be all over you either for letting Moulton off too easily or for unjustly punishing thousands of innocent people who also use those 327,936 IPs.  Only a damned fool would do what you are doing.  Ask Perry or Lisa.  They'll tell you how an Alpha dog is supposed to behave.  —Caprice 05:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Presumably, with the blocks of his continuing escalating socks and IP addresses that we are (or he is) looking for a sitewide ban of him from Wikiversity until he learns not to use other people's real names here. (Then we can appropriate apply WP:RBI; that is, revert and block on sight any sock he makes.) TeleComNasSprVen 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abd
I'm making an emergency request at meta to at least temporarily remove Abd as a custodian, following some rather sudden actions this morning. The actions include:
 * 1) altering the conditions of his own probation
 * 2) deleting the page that had the agreement
 * 3) unblocking Poetlister1, when there was certainly no consensus to do so (discussions here, and despite the fact that the matter was under discussion.

For those not familiar with his status, I closed his most recent RFC as "no consensus to promote", but he retained his status as an ongoing probationary custodian because he hadn't up until that point used the tools in a controversial or provocative way. This morning's actions seem to go beyond what is acceptable for a custodian who has failed to get community support, and certainly beyond what any probationary custodian should do without prior discussion and/or consultation with the mentors. --SB_Johnny talk 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I consulted with my mentor, extensively. SBJ is merely assuming that I did not. However, I'm responsible for the action, not my mentor. My mentor neither approved the action nor did he prohibit it.
 * An emergency removal based on actions of that level (a single unblock, what amounts to a single file deletion with the associated talk page, in my user space without my permission), given what actions SBJ has himself done without support in policy or consensus, is not appropriate. There is no ongoing danger. Policy covers my custodianship. SBJ himself moved my agreement out of WV space on the argument that it was just my own private proposal. He claimed consensus for it not belonging in WV space. He claimed it was not accepted. So I accepted that, and acted based on the alleged non-acceptance. I considered just placing a speedy deletion tag, but if this was just my own work, now in my user space, moved as such over my objections, I certainly have the right to delete it. I then notified that the agreement was being withdrawn, in case anyone was relying upon it, and my mentor is free, then, to withdraw mentorship. I grant my mentor the right to immediately request removal, instead of providing the 48-hour period for me to find a new mentor as provided in policy. SBJ does not have that right.
 * SBJ is highly involved here. My actions that he's cited both involve specific disagreements between him and I. He is not acting for the protection of Wikiversity and Wikiversity users, to the contrary.
 * If he misrepresents the situation at meta, and a steward acts on that, it can be fixed. There is no emergency here, in any direction.
 * Again, if anything I've done is improper, it can be fixed. I do not wheel-war. SBJ's doesn't mention that it was he who blocked the user, violating our policy. There is no wave of actions here, I'm busy and don't plan to be doing anything more today, for sure, and only happened to notice this by accident.

 * I think mistakes have been made, possibly due to a false premise. Consensus may have been that the page didn't belong in WV space, but that was the extent of the consensus. I think a documented agreement between mentor and the mentored belongs in user space. I think there was no intention to void that agreement or the mentorship. I think withdraw of an probationary custodian agreement is grounds for termination of the probationary custodianship, but I think the withdraw was done because of the false premise. I think that can be overlooked and could have been resolved by restoring the agreement to your user space. However I think termination of the probationary custodianship was the right call to make because you didn't wait for consensus to develop at the global ban review before acting on Poetlister's global ban. I think if the stewards remove the tools, the only purpose restoring the agreement would have left is to preserve the history of you probationary custodianship. -- dark lama  17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, this was not a "documented agreement between mentor and mentored." It was something I offered the community that was never formally accepted, and that probably had no effect. That's obvious from the history. I.e., I'd still have become a probationary custodian. The decision on termination would be up to the mentor, and to avoid argument with the mentor, I've now agreed that the mentor(s) may revoke mentorship and may request lifting the bits, without delay, whereas policy would allow me 48 hours to find a new mentor.
 * Darklama, either I had the right to delete the file or I didn't. I believe I had the right, but if you disagree, you are a custodian. I'm not going to consent to undeletion, but if deletion was a violation of policy, if it harms the wiki, you have the same rights as any other custodian to restore it, on your own responsibility. I will reserve judgment on what I would do then, until then. My withdrawal from the agreement, at this point, still stands. I'm now, as far as I'm concerned, an ordinary probationary custodian, with the same rights as I'd have without that agreement.
 * There was no "consensus" that the page did not belong in WV space. There was a hasty action, by you, with no prior discussion, reversed by me. There was then a *little* support for the original action, with little or no consideration of the issues. I proposed process that would, indeed, seek consensus. SBJ acted precipitately, as he has, many times, with damaging effect. --Abd 19:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 * At some point I think it would be helpful to have Abd's indef WV probationary custodial status move on to either full custodianship or not a custodian. The latter could occur via meta if considered emergency (pending ATM). Alternatively we could re-open the Abd3 nomination for full custodianship or start a new discussion. How would others suggest proceeding? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My Wikiversity account was hacked
Username: FrequentIntenseMatureSuggestiveThemes

Password: htfflippy

My Wikiversity account was hacked! When logging in to Wikiversity I was greeted, but when clicking on links I am logged out. When logging in using the above credentials, I get an error message saying 'Incorrect password entered. Please try again'. Am I now forced to create a new account? What the heck just happened with my account? --189.70.92.232 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been locked, like the rest of yours
 * See Steward requests/Global -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd like a custodian to block this IP for like a month.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest waiting on the outcome of Steward requests/Global. No action on Wikiversity may be necessary. The edits from this IP on en.wv to date are mostly additions of Wikipedia block-related templates. Import of such pages would be preferred, so that the edit history is maintained. . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I would like FrequentIntenseMatureSuggestiveThemes to be unlocked. I did a lot of constructive contribs to Wikiversity! --189.70.92.232 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle
Hello, Custodians. This is to notify you that I've copied the entire Twinkle script. Can anyone put it in Gadgets section, please? User:Dipankan001/Twinkle.js. Dipankan001 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletions
This is quite backlogged, good if a custodian could see to it. --Claritas (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Leading Editing Supervisors
Please see the above page. It states "If you would like to be a leading editing supervisors (sic), please put your name on the list of candidates." The author of the page, World historia, has placed himself at the head. He adds "However, if you remove names from the list of elected supervisors and the list of candidates or put your name on the list of elected supervisors without the head or vice heads' permissions, you will be punished by our policy."

So far as I can see, World historia is not a custodian. Does this page have any authority? If not, can it be deleted, as it is clearly misleading. Thank you.--Collingwood (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Y Done -- dark lama  12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of MicroSoft clip art
I recently deleted some MicroSoft clip art as a copyvio. The uploader, Aabrell, claims that it is not a copyvio. Can I please seek other custodians' advice.--Collingwood (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clip art in Microsoft products is subject to copyright and may only be used in accordance with EDP. The key part is no free or open equivalent available. The Youtube screenshot depends upon the licensing used for the video. Geoff (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar needs to be amended
Strategy wiki Strategy:Main Page has been locked for a couple of years now—it should be removed from the "wikimedia projects" sidebar. Also, I'd recommend capitalizing "Wikimedia". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ This wiki is locked, but the contents are still there for reference. As far as I can see, Wikimedia already has a capital W.--Collingwood (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Global Sysops
@Collingwood: I'm going to ask you (it seems as if you are one of the few admins active) what you would think about opting into the scope of GSs (as Jasper Deng suggested above). I've seen before on RC Billinghurst blocking and deleting spambot stuff; well, he shouldn't do it theoretically, but there's a great deal of spam here so he was somehow forced to deal with it. IMHO en.wikiversity is one of the most bombarded wikis by spammers and according to a ToolServer's tool there are just 2/3 admins active right now (even if there are lots of custodians here). That's why I'd suggest doing an Opt-in for GS so that they could help here (only) deleting spam stuff (other things are managed by local sysops). That's just a suggestion of course. -- Frigotoni ... i'm here ; 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have copied the above from my talk page in case anyone else wants to comment. I would be happy to agree but am reluctant to do so without giving others a chance to comment.  There is a fair amount of spam fighting being done by non-custodians here, but certainly more help would be welcome.--Collingwood (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The community can decide whether to opt-in or not to, and my request at Collingwood has to be accounted just as an advice. -- Frigotoni ... i'm here ; 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


text:
Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis (from photo- (light) and synthesis (composition)) is the process by which plants and certain other organisms obtain and convert solar (or light) energy into chemical energy.

Introduction
All cells need energy, the ability to perform or complete work, in order for them to maintain their existence. Even us humans need energy! If we do not have energy, we cannot do even the most basic things in life! These basic things include walking, standing, sitting, and even your heart beating! All cells require energy for (but not limited to) these five reasons: Life as we know it depends on chemical energy, energy saved in chemical bonds. But how do certain organisms get this chemical energy? There are two ways in which an organism obtains energy:
 * 1) Use energy to carry out active transport.
 * 2) Synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids.
 * 3) Response to chemical signals at the cell surface.
 * 4) Movement (motor proteins) of organelles around the cell.
 * 5) Used to produce light in some organisms, such as fireflies.
 * 1) Autotrophs are organisms that do not eat or absorb other organisms for energy as they make their own energy. Most autotrophs, known as photoautotrophs, carry out photosynthesis (plants, protists, and bacteria). Autotrophs don't only just produce energy to satisfy themselves, but they also produce enough energy to satisfy other animals too: Autotrophs (plants, after sunlight) start the food chain (EX: Grass provides energy for a rabbit, who provides energy to several animals, such as snakes and foxes). If it wasn't for these producers (An autotrophic organism that starts the food chain cycle), we wouldn't have anything to eat!
 * 2) Heterotrophs are organisms that are not able to make their own energy, so they resort to absorbing or eating energy from other organisms. Heterotrophs are also known as consumers because they consume other organisms for energy in the food chain cycle. Examples of heterotrophs are foxes, cats, snakes, hawks, eagles, crocodiles, tigers, lions, and even us: humans!

Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis converts light/solar energy into chemical energy, and thus is very important to life. But, how does it work? Let's first take a look at the chemical equation for photosynthesis (reactants on the left, products on the right): "energy from the Sun + 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2"

Here, we need 3 important elements in order to kick-start the process. We need sunlight, carbon dioxide and water. How do plants obtain all of these three elements?

Obtainment
Wavelengths of light are absorbed and reflected by molecules called pigments. In plants, the green pigment that absorbs sunlight is known as chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is found in the chloroplast, an organelle that is the site of photosynthesis (in plants).
 * Sunlight

Chlorophyll absorbs solar energy and transfers it to chemicals involved in the photosynthetic process. Sunlight contains all the colors of the rainbow (Roy G. Biv). All the colors hit the chlorophyll molecules, but only certain colors are absorbed. Chlorophyll absorbs well in the blue-violet and red sections of the visible light spectrum, whereas chlorophyll reflects most of the green light in the visible light spectrum, giving most plants a green color. Pipe-like structures in the leaves, known as stomata, control the flow of carbon dioxide into a plant and the flow of oxygen outside of the plant. The flow of these gases are also regulated by gaurd cells, cells that open and close the stomata. In a vascular plant, pipe-like tissues conduct water to different parts of the plant. In a non-vascular plant, water is unable to be conducted, and therefore, must be absorbed from the plant's surroundings (such as in the soil).
 * Carbon Dioxide
 * Water

The 2-step process
Now that we have the necessary "ingredients" to perform photosynthesis, we can get started! Photosynthesis occurs in two steps, the Light Reactions (also: light-dependent reaction) and the Calvin Cycle (also: dark-reactions, light-independent reactions, carbon fixation).

Light Reactions
The light reactions occur in the thylakoid membrane of the chloroplast. It is made up of two photosystems:

Photons from the sun travel 93 million miles into Photosystem II of the thylakoid. This excites the electrons in the chlorophyll molecule, which are then shifted around various "electron-acceptors"--each electron-accepter causing the electron's energy state to diminish. Moving around these excited electrons cause the electrons, and hydrogen molecules, in H2O (water) to be "donated" over to replace the excited electron's place in the various electron-acceptors in the chloroplast. This causes oxygen to be created as a waste product, as water is essentially stripped off of its hydrogens and electrons, leaving the oxygen molecules all by themselves. As the electron's energy state diminishes, groups of hydrogen protons are transported from the stroma over to the lumen.

Then, Photosystem I allows NADP+, the final electron acceptor in the thylakoid, to accept the not-so-excited electron and a hydrogen proton to make NADPH. This is where the NADPH comes from. Meanwhile, in the lumen, the hydrogen protons, after getting pumped into the lumen, demonstrate chemiosmosis--they are then pumped back up into the stroma, causing ATP synthase. The ATP synthase then merges ADP with several phosphate groups, forming ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate - energy storage molecule). The ATP and NADPH formed by these reactions are needed in the Calvin Cycle.

The chemical equation for Light Reaction is as shown:

"SL (sunlight) + H2O → O2 + NADPH + ATP"

Calvin Cycle
The two byproducts from our light reactions, ATP and NADPH, are transferred to the stroma, the liquid-filling area of the chloroplast not taken up by the thylakoids, to go through the Calvin Cycle. Six molecules of CO2 react with six molecules of 5-carbon molecule RuBP (also: Ribulose Biphosphate, ribulose-1, 5-biphosphate) to form 6 molecules of 3-carbon molecule phosphoglyceraldehyde (PGA). Electrons in the PGA and carbon dioxide are not in a high enough energy state to start this reaction by themselves, so an energy-source is needed: 12 ATPs and 12 NADPHs.

With all of these combined, 12 ADPs, 12 NADP+s, and 12 phosphate groups are created. The electrons in NADPH are at a higher energy state. When NADPH's electron's energy states go to lower energy states, it helps produce ADP and NADP+ to be formed by putting energy into the reaction. ATPs' electrons, when their phosphate groups are lost, are in a very high energy state. Like NADPH, when they enter into lower energy states, ATP helps drive the reaction.

As cycles reuse things, the Calvin Cycle reuses most of the PGAL to recreate RuBP. This "reusing" part of the cycle, just like in the beginning, will need energy: ATP, ADP and phosphate groups (no NADPH). Extra PGAL not used will be used to make glucose, or C6H12O6 (or any type of carbohydrate, starch or sugar).

The chemical equation of the Calvin Cycle is shown as follows:

"CO2 + NADPH + ATP → C6H12O6"

Sources/See also

 * Talk:Photosynthesis
 * How Cells Obtain Energy - Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition.
 * Biologymad.com - Chap. 5, Photosynthesis
 * Youtube: Photosynthesis - KhanAcademy
 * Youtube: Light Reactions - KhanAcademy
 * Youtube: Calvin Cycle - KhanAcademy
 * Youtube: How does Photosynthesis Happen - BYJU'S

title: Photosynthesis