From this:
 |
| Source: FunnyCorner 2012 |
To this:
 |
| Source: LaMonica 2012 |
This week we learned about Regulation and Ownership. Specifically we discussed copyright, its origins and how it is evolving (or not) today. Last week I discussed the Olympics, so instead I shall discuss a concept mentioned in the lecture, that of copyleft.
As the name suggests copyleft is the opposite of copyright. As an idea copyleft subverts traditional copyright law. It “uses existing copyright regulations to place a document, idea or programme in the public domain as a universally available product that remains freely available” (Lowes 2006: 49)
Just as the symbol “©” is understood to mean copyright, copyleft has it’s own version:
 |
| Source: Wikipedia 2005 |
No your eyes aren’t deceiving you, I just referenced Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is an example of copyleft. As university students we’ve all been told to avoid Wikipedia as it is ‘amateur’ (each and every lecturer and tutor I’ve ever had). A cNet article discussed a study that compared Wikipedia articles with Encyclopaedia Britannica’s articles. The results were surprising. Britannica was found to have an average of 2.92 mistakes per article; while Wikipedia had 3.86 (Terdiman 2005). Apparently the gap between professional and amateur is not too wide.
Copyleft is becoming increasingly popular within society today. Some of my friends (fallaciously) prefer Android phones over iPhones, just as another friend studying something science-y tries to sell me on Linux. Willow Garage, a Robotics company, has even released its Robotics Operating System to an open source body, hoping it’ll move robots “beyond curiosities and cool demos” (LaMonica 2012).
An amusing example of copyleft is the Lolcats translation of the Bible.
FunnyCorner (2012), Wikipedia, accessed 6 August 2012 <http://www.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/5792/funny-demotivational-pictures/wikipedia.html>
Hey Lincoln,
ReplyDeleteYou explain “copyleft” very well with the Wikipedia example. It’s amazing how the mistakes on the Encyclopaedia is not that much different compared to the mistakes on Wikipedia. I thought Encyclopaedia is much more professional than Wikipedia which anyone and everyone can write.
I was also told not to use Wikipedia for referencing. But I think it depends on the topic, some are also wrote professionally because they also use lots of reference from other sources that can rely on. Can our blogs be copyleft too?
I don't know if our blogs are copyleft, you can't edit my blog just as I cannot edit your blog. Also the source code for the website is not available within the Public Domain... it is however an example of digital journalism ^_^
Deletethanks for the comments!
Your blog was very informative, I had previously no understand or knowledge of copyleft. The blog is well thought out and written the lots of referencing including the use of Wikipedia, even though it was only for the image. Furthermore on the concept of Wikipedia I don't believe its copyleft due to it using copyright to protect its information and domain.
ReplyDelete