QotW5: Stranger Than Fiction

My Online Identity

An online identity that I have claimed as my own is FelSong. A combination of my first and last names, it is a name that my online friends best know me by, and has become a nickname that those who know me in real life use. This online identity of mine is situated in my email, my blog, my IM, the forums I participate in, and is also the penname I go by when writing on fanfiction.net.

According to Rebecca Tushnet, author of Using Law and Identity to Script Cultural Production: Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law, fan fiction is “any kind of written creativity that is based on an identifiable segment of popular culture such as a television show, and is not produced as ‘professional’ writing.” (McCardle, 2003) Thus, a fan fiction writer is someone who produces such literary work.

Homepage of http://www.fanfiction.net

While the “canon” or the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows is properly credited to its creator (McCardle, 2003), any work of fan fiction is not officially acknowledged by copyright. In fact, “fan fiction infringes on copyright protections” (McCardle, 2003). However, as some courts have ruled that “the ultimate purpose behind fan fiction writing is to satisfy innate desires, not to make a profit” and fan fiction writers can claim that what they are doing constitutes fair use, the copyright problem is fuzzy at best.

To return to the discussion of online identities with regards to fan fiction, I refer to the fact that only the original creators get due credit for their work. Fan fiction writers such as myself have to depend solely on the online identity or pseudonym that we use, as well as, the fan fiction we produce, to build credibility and to gain a following for ourselves. To do this takes time and a dedication to creating literature that others like myself enjoy. Therefore, Judith Donath hits the bull’s eye when she writes that “one is far less inclined to abandon an online presence that had taken great effort to create” (Donath, 1996).

Reputation

As aforementioned, fan fiction writers establish a reputation through their writings. If their works are well-received they would slowly gain a following. Fanfiction.net enables the fan fiction writers who post on its web site to set up a profile page that lists their works, their own favorite fan fiction authors and stories, and the communities they participate in. Furthermore, it provides an email notification service of newly received reviews or personal messages.

My profile page on fanfiction.net

This means that I am able to communicate with my readers – answering whatever questions they may have about my work, giving them clues about future plot developments, or introducing them to my other writings. This ‘immediate’ and personal way of communicating with the very people who share my passion for a particular “canon”, makes my online identity more than just a name that appears on the screen but a real human being.

Identity Theft

The creation of “FelSong” as my online identity sets me apart from other fan fiction writers and enables fans of my works to easily search for my other writings. It also means that I am able to create a ‘name’ or a reputation for myself through my fan fiction not only through fanfiction.net but via related forums and my blog as well. My desire to gain more readers for my fan fiction through the creation of an online identity that seems real and credible is at odds with my desire to maintain my privacy. I refer to the Manifesto for the Reputation Society’s definition of the inbound reputation or “reputation that others have about me”, and its claim that the inbound reputation is a shifting balance between my right to privacy and the right to share and collaborate with others using this same reputation (Masum & Zhang, 2004). However, this is hard to do as I employ the same online identity throughout most of my online transactions or activities.

In fact, an online search using Google turns up links to my numerous online activities using my online identity "FelSong".

The loss of my privacy is one such risk I have to take if I wish to become a more accomplished writer. After all, “a key perk of being a fan fiction author is getting feedback from other authors and readers within the fan fiction community” (McCardle, 2003). This means, that I face an added risk of having my online identity stolen; a risk that grows as my reputation for writing good fan fiction grows as well. A person who wishes to steal my online identity has only to discover my password. With that password, they can easily flame other fan fiction authors using my pen name or post ‘troll’-like remarks on the forums I participate in. More importantly, they could post fan fiction under my name, possibly lowering the standards that my readers expect of me.

In conclusion, my online identity is something that I have carefully cultivated over the years, and am immensely proud of. It allows me to be easily recognized by those who read my fan fiction, and sets me apart from all the other fan fiction writers. Should this online identity ever be stolen, I would be hard pressed to create another online identity as I would need to invest time and effort into informing my readers of the theft and the subsequent change of my online screen name, as well as, reclaiming my writings as my own.

References

Donath, J. (1996, November). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved on February 19, 2007 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/%20Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Masum, H., & Zhang, Y. C. (2004, July). Manifesto for the Reputation Society. First Monday, 9(7). Retrieved on February 19, 2007 from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/masum/index.html

McCardle, M. (2003). Fan Fiction, Fandom, and Fanfare: What’s All The Fuss? Boston University, 9(2). Retrieved on February 19, 2007 from https://www.bu.edu/law/scitech/%20volume9issue2/McCardleWebPDF.pdf

QotW4: Spreading the Cheer, Escaping the Jeers

What Drives The Gift Economy? ~ Sharing knowledge not shutting up

The ‘gift’ in gift economy pertaining to the exchange of information online such as providing answers to questions posted in forums, is a public good. This is so as “it is to some degree indivisible” and “non-excludable”, and is especially so in this digital day and age where the ease of copying and transmitting material enables “even a single individual's contribution of information or advice” to be transformed “into a public good” (Kollock, 1999). While these factors contribute to the willingness of many to provide expert advice, how-to tips, and advice, etc; it is social proof and the rule of reciprocity, as well as, the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that we ourselves and others provide, repspectively, that makes this economy of giving as successful as it is.

Social Proof & Reciprocity in Online Forums ~ The cycle of love = give and take

The principle of social proof involves the viewing of a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it (Cialdini, 2000). Therefore, the individual upon seeing the forum community’s unhesitant acts of ‘charity’ feels inclined to do the same in order to fit in. Of course, this could also be a cause of the rule of reciprocation, which states that “we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us” (Cialdini, 2000). According to Tiger and Fox, this “web of indebtedness” as viewed by cultural anthropologists, is a unique human adaptive mechanism that creates interdependencies which bind individuals together into highly efficient units (as cited in Cialdini, 2000).

Thus, the individual forum user having received a gift in the form of advice or any other online material feels the need to return the favor by helping someone else within the group. It has to be said that within such online communities, each member is regarded as an inherent part of the whole as they are all connected to one another via a shared interest or otherwise; enabling a “system of generalized exchange” (Kollock, 1999) where reciprocity occurs within the group as a whole and immediate reciprocation is unnecessary.

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation ~ Don't let the cat get your tongue

The two motivations are not extensions of the gift economy but rather make up the fuel that drives it. This can be inferred upon the study of tribal societies like those in Polynesia, who “organized themselves around the potlatch – the circulation of gifts”. The resultant gift economy “bound people together into tribes and encouraged cooperation between different tribes” (Barbrook, 2005). In other words, the intrinsic motivation was to desire to belong to the larger community by contributing, and the extrinsic motivation was to cooperate to achieve the common goal of survival.

Relating this to the modern day concept of online communities, whereby technology has enabled the individual to easily create a ‘gift’ by simply moving his fingers across a keyboard is simple. For instance, the Apache computer program that is “continually developed by its techie users” is open to modification, amendments, and improvements by anyone with the appropriate programming skills for “its source code is not protected by copyright” (Barbrook, 2005). What makes it interesting, though, is the fact that it is shareware instead of being marketed by a commercial company. In short, the creation and evolution of Apache is powered solely by its creators’ intrinsic motivation of passion. While the lack of copyright means no monetary reward and thus points to an absent extrinsic motivation, Apache’s creators have looked past financial gain, choosing instead to revel in the recognition of other user-developers within the community.

My Gift “Economy”

A fan of fantasy novels with political intrigue and strong female characters, I am a member of numerous forums where fans of such stories are able to discuss and recommend books they have read. As a new member of the LiveJournal community Athanarel (http://www.livejournal.com/users/athanarel/), I recall tentatively asking questions about the novel, Crown Duel, the group was dedicated to. The responses I received were overwhelming, and it was an added bonus that the author herself was able to answer my queries while posting and ‘friend locking’ her unpublished works. This meant that I could read her unpublished stories so long as I signed up as a member of the community. As time went on and upon learning more about the world and characters of Crown Duel, I was more than happy to share my knowledge with new and old members alike. Furthermore, having read other novels similar to Crown Duel thanks in part to the recommendations of other readers, I am now equally well-equipped to point others in the right direction.

This cycle of give-and-take not only enables me to keep in touch with like-minded others, it also fosters a sense of community and belonging that far exceeds the costs of ‘giving’. Moreover, as such information would hardly benefit me more should I keep it to myself I have no qualms about making it a ‘public good’ by sharing it with others who would value it as much as I do.

References

Barbrook, R. (2005). The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. First Monday. Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/

Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and Practice Fourth Edition. Singapore: Allyn and Bacon.

Kollock, Peter (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. Communities in Cybrespace. Retrieved February 6, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

Photo Credits

Anuka Baratashvili: http://anuk.deviantart.com/store/
Msog~: http://msog.deviantart.com/
Firebird books: www.firebirdbooks.com/crownfull.html

Looking Back at Beacons

It feels strange blogging nowadays. I guess it's because it has become something I do for school. It kinda takes the fun out of it. The lack of spontaneity is unnerving when you have to write a mini-research paper every week.

But there's a silver lining surrounding every storm cloud. And in this case, the silver lining is having the ability to think for myself. I like such learning experiences because I'm not spoon fed. That's the whole point of an American education really - to learn and think for yourself. The teacher mainly serves as a guide and a mentor.

Sadly, such teachers are hard to come by. The kind who, at the end of the day, leave you with a greater sense of self and the belief that you're a better person than you were before. I often recall with warm and fuzzy feelings Ms Low, my ESL teacher for 2 semesters, and Ms Lesvesque who taught me UGC for 2 semesters as well.

Ms Low always came down hard on us. She was strict about punctuality and had higher expectations than all the other ESL teachers our friends had. Because of that, I felt as if her lessons were worth my time and attention. It certainly helped that she provided the necessary instruction and encouragement that fuelled my interest and made her lessons less work than play.

Gaylene, or Ms. Levesque, is the one-of-a-kind teacher I'll never forget. She was always full of fun and humorous to boot! In a grandmotherly sort of way, she'll only gently admonish and it always felt as if she had our backs. I guess the teacher really does matter when it comes to making history come alive! UGC wasn't dull or boring, it was interesting and engaging.

Then we had the American professors coming down to teach us. Hmm... we had our fair share of eccentric professors, as well as those who were utterly exemplary. Most of us fell in love with Prof. Vishwanath. Haha! And we all agreed that the man was charming. Looking back, it's funny how he commanded our attention with such ease. I think half of us were entranced by his accent. Then again, he kinda exuded charm and since most of us are girls it's understandable why we succumbed to his teachings.

Dr Sachs, too, in his own way was a great teacher. He's another one of those teachers who require you to think for yourself while prodding you in the right direction. I'll never forget the day he called my name out in a booming, God-like voice because I had written a good essay on the exams. That sort of validation was just the kind of encouragement I needed since I'd thought I'd screwed up that paper.

Personally, I think too much praise for one particular student may breed envy and jealousy among the rest. However, the giving of praise where deserved would bypass that nasty side effect and serve the express purpose of motivating the other students, especially if they know they stand a chance of doing better through sheer hard work.

I don't think I would make a good teacher. I lack the patience for one thing. Grading assignments is not my idea of a nice weekend for another. Seeing that, I do have an idea of what a good teacher should be.

I suppose the teacher-student relationship has to be comfortable. It's difficult in the Asian context for students to be overtly friendly with their teachers. We tend to maintain a respectful distance. The teacher at his or her discretion sets the tone of the relationship, and the students tend to dance to his or her tune. I don't see this as a fault per se but it can get frustrating when there is no distinction between the role of teacher and friend. That's why I think the mentor role is the best - it's the combination of the two! Maybe that's why Asian students prefer to be safe than sorry, retreating back into their strictly business facade when in class.

However, as strong-minded individuals, I've noticed that my classmates as well as myself are very critical of our teachers. Since we have new faces every semester, the first day of school is always interesting. First impressions are formed immediately and by the end of the first lesson we can pretty much predict whether or not we'll enjoy the class. Then comes the assessment of the teachers which occurs just as quickly. Those who are easily taken advantaged of lose our respect, those who are unorganized annoy us, those who are overbearingly strict terrify us, and those who are mediocre are forgotten.

I never thought I'd ever remember any of my teachers well, but looking back at all the teachers I've had there are a few that stand out. I guess the saying that many people walk in and out of your life, but only some leave footprints on your heart, is true.

QotW3: The Copyright Conundrum

The Copyright Conundrum

To summarize the problem at hand, it can be said that the interests of content creators and that of the public are at loggerheads. In order to accommodate the needs of both parties to achieve the greater good, a compromise has to be made.

In my opinion, copyright – or the content creators’ ability to have some form of ownership over their works, is imperative, for the monetary rewards it could reap would serve as a motivation for them to continue creating their original works (Ovalle, 2005, p.2). Unfortunately, should everything be completely protected by copyright and nothing be allowed to pass into the public domain, the public’s ability to innovate by drawing upon available ideas, would be severely hindered.

On a side note, the latter view is echoed by Fiona Macmillan, a professor of law from the University of London (2006). She states that copyright has failed the “concepts of genius, creativity, and culture”, as the” threshold of the originality requirement in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works” is very low (p.1). In other words, any creative work can be copyrighted so long as it is considered ‘original’. However, originality extends insofar as the creators’ own ideas, neglecting the fact that they may have been inspired by and thus have infringed upon other copyrighted works. This situation succinctly describes the copyright conundrum.

Copyright laws as we know them are at best unclear and differ from case to case. They are further complicated by exceptions to the rule like First Sale and Fair Use. In addition, the advent of the digital age has brought about digital objects that require “mediation” via the creation and displaying of copies (Ovalle, 2005). Such copies are double-edged swords, increasing the ease of copyright infringement while promoting greater creativity. For example, the incident involving the creative remixing of the band Green Day’s American Idiot album by two disc jockeys, was a “copyright nightmare” that “became an instant hit” (“Remix culture”, n.d.).

Technical Solution: Creative Commons

Creative Commons licensing “allows the copyright holder to grant some of its rights to the public while retaining others” (Brady, n.d.); a non-profit organization, the Creative Commons (CC) provides free tools that content creators can use to “mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry” (“Creative Commons”, 2007). In short, this avenue, which enables content creators to choose from a continuum of copyrights, could prove to be the answer that would best please both content creators and users while providing sufficient encouragement and ability for all to continue creating and innovating.

Evidence of the success of CC licensing is obvious from its global jurisdiction of thirty-five countries; and an adoption scope, which includes the likes of archives such as Flickr, formal publications such as the Public Library of Science, collaborative content such as Wikinews, and instructional materials such as Clinical Skills Online (“Wikipedia: Creative Commons”, 2007).

However, CC does have its detractors who claim that it lacks an ethical, political, common sense, and pro-copyright position (“Wikipedia: Creative Commons”, 2007). While this may be so, I believe that CC is a viable technical structure that offers a form of copyright that would reasonably satisfy both creators and users of creative content. Naturally, it can be improved upon by defining more clearly the extent of the copyright its licenses provide, as well as setting a minimum requirement for the granting of its licenses.


Social Solution: User Honesty

The hope of abolishing piracy and plagiarism is a far fetched one, and it can only be achieved by total honesty on the part of the general public. This means changing the mindsets of pirates and plagiarizers and ensuring that they do not exploit copyrighted works for their own commercial benefit. To do this, the masses must be made to understand that intellectual dishonesty will not be tolerated.

While the act of piracy is deliberate and unavoidable without user honesty, there are times when plagiarism is accidentally committed. The simplest way to avoid doing so would be to ensure that all sources are acknowledged “in a full and consistent manner” (Claerhout, 2004).


Conclusion

In conclusion, current copyright laws are not entirely satisfactory due to their vagueness, and are biased towards protecting the interests of the content creators with almost complete disregard for the content users or would-be content creators.

Therefore, it is my belief that existing copyright laws should be more clearly defined, constructed in such a way that would benefit the public, and appended with probable punishments for offenders.

Lastly, alternative avenues to copyright such as the Creative Commons should be taken into consideration as a means of balancing the needs of the user and the ownership of content creator; the achievement of which would lead to the good of the greater public.


References

Brady, K. S. (2007). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/%7Ekbrady/copyright.html

Claerhout, L. A. (2004). Copyright Issues in Online Courses: A Moment in Time. [Electronic version]. Theory and Practice of Online Learning.

Creative Commons. (2007, January). Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://creativecommons.org/

Macmillan, F. (2006, February). Copyrights Commodification of Creativity. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from Birkbeck College, University of London Web site: http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0203.pdf

Ovalle, C. (2005). An Introduction to Copyright. Information in Cyberspace, 2. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/1.php

Remix culture: a rights nightmare. (n.d.). ABC: Catapult. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1645533.htm

Wikipedia: Creative commons (2007, Jan 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 31, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons%2028%20January%202007