Freedom?

Aizat Ismail.

I define free speech as a type of freedom that has its own category. A category which can be understood easily if we know the basic concept of free speech. Basically, I lack some parts of it but I know the values that exist within the free speech. In fact, it will not be necessarily true if we think of free speech as free speech, however, it would be much easier if we think of free speech as diverse viewpoints. By considering the opinions of others and not just constraints your thoughts only to something of your interests, would enable one to experience the true meaning of free speech. Again, if you engage in filtering, it means you are not engage in diverse viewpoints. For example, you focus more on Fox News in which the contents are toward more on conservative side and then you decide not to watch the New York News in which the contents are toward more on liberal side. Think about it. How is that going to help you learn the way things in our surrounding works and cooperate with each other? Is it even possible to say that one does engage merely in free speech which also known as diverse viewpoints when such act is applied in his or her daily life? As in individual, we can also define free speech as the rights of individual while for community or society; it is an expression of diversity of viewpoints. In the Unites States, free speech is expressed in the first amendment being stated that no restrictions should be established on expressions of our thoughts. That is why the term of diverse viewpoints is better to be used to describe the free speech and to think how freedom is much related to it.

Can you really define the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is ambiguous and for this it isn’t even made clear by those that are appointed to interpret it. Anthony Lewis has been writing about the justice system and the press for over 40 years, and in his book “Freedom for the Thought We Hate” he argued that the First Amendment is poorly understood and for much of its history has been poorly protected by the courts. Part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I think this lack of specificity makes the First Amendment powerful yet unreliable at times. It is powerful because it can last and make sense for means of interpretation to every generation in every time period. It is unreliable because of the “intentional” vagueness and the amount of mistakes that humans make interpreting the legality in accordance with this amendment. This is why Lewis feels that this poorly understood amendment has been poorly protected. It makes sense because everyone throughout history that stood up for free speech were punished until 1931 as Lewis stated. People of this nation had bad opinions about the president at the time and were placed in prison. This was because of Sedition Acts that were put into action and the acts are a direct violation of the freedom of speech but judges at the time were allowing people to be placed in jail. As expressed in Lessig, just like filtering is occuring today in cyberspace, Americans of the past were forced to silence of filtered thoughts of war and presidential decisions and it shows that history continues to repat itself event to this day. Therefore the First Amendment is still poorly protected.

Can Bloggers Save Journalism?

Chris Johnson
Often when I’m reading the newspaper or watching the news, I get tired of hearing about the same sorts of stories all of the time. Also, while most stories are strictly informative, some are presented with biased opinions when all I really want to know is the facts. The reason for this, I believe, is that newspaper while they do aim to inform readers of news, are profit driven. In order to maximize profits they must carefully choose which stories they publish and how they approach certain issues in the news. Personally I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this, because profits are important for newspapers to stay afloat. However, I do believe that there needs to be a medium of information transfer that does not have profits as one of its main motives. This is why I believe that blogs are so great. People get to tell the stories they believe are important and the floor is open for anyone who has an opinion. Blogs are created strictly for making information known. It is true that sometimes there are issues on the validity of the information or that the opinions of bloggers are questioned, but what is so great about blogs is that people can come in, read the blogs, get the facts straight, and then also tell how they feel about the issue. Newspapers don’t provide this. With technology becoming more and more advanced, I think that blogs are going to become more important and I believe that it is a great thing.

Value of free speech

Written By Lily Syafikah Mansor

Everyone in this world has their own freedom to voice out what they think. We cannot be jailed if we criticize someone. We have right to speak up. First Amendment is intended to protect the value of free speech from restrictions of government. People might believe that government is only a threat to free speech. It is undeniable that sometime government did restrict some speeches. However, the truth is government zoning the access which mean there is transparent and reason why we could not access on the web. In other hand, private companies might even more mean as they did filtered the speech that they don’t want and we even don’t know any transparent that prohibit us from access to the web. I think zoning is done correspond with what government thought good for the community and the good is at least we knew the reason we could not access compare to filtering.”The architecture of cyberspace is the real protector of speech",Lessig. For me, I agree with what Lessig tries to point out because even though the free speech is officially and legally protected under First Amendment but cyberspace is indirectly seem protected the value of free speech. This is because free speech is absolutely applies on cyberspace. It seems visualize what the free speech is. People could say anything that they want and voice out their opinion without worries that they will be sue or something. Nowadays, we could search and read a lot of sources in the cyberspace. Many people do blogging, like what I’m doing right now. I’m writing blog to speak up my opinion other than be asked by Prof. Am I will be sue if what I’m said might offense someone? Of course not because this is what the free speech is. Wikipedia basically is written by amateur that writing because they love to instead of do it because of money. Wikipedia and blog is broad base. There are no guarantees that the writing will be true 100% but there is guarantee on the process which is the collaboration process involved in working toward truth. This make free speech is valuable because we could exchange ideas with others.

Free Speech In Cyberspace

written by Ikhwan Jamaludin (free speech)

When we talk about free speech we always think that free speech comes into word from our tongue. So, when we say something, someone will agree with us and maybe someone will argue us. That is life. But, still there are also some restrictions in free speech according to First Amendment. Nowadays, free speech not only comes from our tongue, it also can come from our hand through cyberspace. According to Lessig, free speech in cyberspace is "relative anonymity, decentralized distribution, multiple points of access, no necessary tie to geography, and no simple system to identify content, tools of encryption". For me, free speech on cyberspace gives us a big impact. If, we want to argue something, we argue by speak out the argument to the public, but, maybe no one want to listen to us because we have no position in community and knowledge about it. Differently, through cyberspace, free speech attracts more attention from others to hear and see what we want to point out in our concern, comment or argument in our free speech. In cyberspace, we can describe our speech more clearly and express it creatively through a video or flash player to emphasize what we want to point out. Sometimes, free speech in cyberspace was trespass by society. So, here is where the First Amendment was read differently for cyberspace to protect free speech. The first amendment in cyberspace is like the first amendment with no regulation Like Lessig said in code, a First Amendment is "more extreme in code than our own First Amendment in law". So, from this understanding, internet actually is just like a medium of free speech to be practiced. Even though, it is easier to practice free speech in cyberspace and trespassing it but still there is restriction from the First Amendment to protect free speech.

Its Mine Now!

Chris Johnson

What if you were forced to keep everything you were ever, given as a gift, found, or purchased? Even when you were tired of it and ready for something new, you still have to keep it; your only option would be to give it away to someone else free of charge. Not only would your home be full of junk, you would be unable to purchase many new items because you could not make money off of your old ones. Obviously this is an absurd idea. I believe that once you purchase something it is yours to do any legal thing you’d like with it. This is the issue at hand with the First Sale Doctrine and Universal Music Groups suit against Troy Augusto. Augusto makes a living buying and selling CDs on Ebay, and Universal is trying to say he is breaking the law because these CD’s are theirs. In past cases involving both purchased items and items given as a gift, the First Sale Doctrine has been upheld and the owners were able to sell their items as they pleased. I believe this is the way that things should be. If the Supreme Court were to deny Augusto the right to sell his CDs they would open up a can of worms that would be difficult to deal with. Anyone who ever made something would be able to deny the owner the right to sell. People would be complaining everywhere. I don’t think it is a serious issue if someone doesn’t want something they made sold, but this should be made clear to the person who receives it before hand. Any sort of sticker or written document that states the provisions of the agreement would ensure that the sorts of issues don’t arise.

Politicizing Copyright

Chris Johnson

Imagine this; you are protesting at a local pro-life rally when a news reporter comes up to you to ask a few questions. You answer them and conclude your argument with the statement “who are these political leaders to decide who gets to kill another living being”. The next thing you know you see your face all over the news and internet with your words “kill another living being” taken completely out of context. Is this fair? Of course not, but it happens all of the time. Take the proposition 8 example giving in the recording. These kids attended a lesbian wedding of one of their school teachers, and the next thing they knew, they were all over pro-prop 8 videos. These kids aren’t even old enough to know about these sorts of issues but yet they are forced into them without consent. Is it fair to categorize them with one belief without their consent? I for one am strongly against gay marriages, but I still believe that the news clip of these children was used unlawfully. Lessig says that copyright laws function to create and incentive for people to create great new works, and I am a firm believer in this. However, I’m also a firm believer that copyright laws should protect from wrongful usage by others. There is a very thin line between these two things, but I believe that only when this line is firmly establish will we be able enjoy the great new works that Lessig speaks of.

Your history is online

Traviers Herndon
It is a large misfortune for everyone that endures an embarrassing or even unwanted moment documented on the internet. As noted by Lessig in Code, nowadays the span of data that can be aggregated about you becomes endless. I say that what a person wants to censor should be allowed based on the scenario. I couldn’t believe that the lady in this pod cast was subject to leaving something comments that she had wrote in the past out in the public without consent. It is very unreasonable that even though she had contacted the editor of the site that he told her that everything on the site is permanent. There should be some type of legal injustice against this guy and any site that holds information against a person’s discretion that doesn’t affect either party in a court of law. Fortunately for the lady, the writing that she created that she wanted removed from the website wouldn’t affect her ability to get a job or anything important. But I think the editor of the site owes it to the lady since her statements weren’t necessary for evidence in a court of law to respect her request for privacy. It never dawns on a person when producing something online to consider the invisible audiences that can search and access information about your past and present until that information affects the person negative. Thanks to websites that link information about people such as google, facebook and myspace, there is lack of privacy. I’m the first to admit; someday facebook may ruin my job opportunity. I need privacy.

Mind Control

Traviers Herndon
I really should have control of what’s going on in my own mind. Subliminal advertising is now being used and essentially violating people’s minds for profit. Highly focused sound is targeted at unsuspected people that walk by certain billboards. The sound is transmitted to the skull, which acts like a speaker and plays an advertisement that only the targeted person can hear. I can’t believe this new way of advertising is legal. In the pod cast, it even said that it scared a person that was being paid to answer questions about the advertisement. Inside the head and or mind is one of the last places that we as people should expect to be violated of personal sanctity. I agree with the civil rights of the mind movement because these advertisements do intrude the cognitive liberties of a person. One way that privacy is defined by Lessig in Code is protection against unreasonable and burdensome intrusion. It is almost a scary thought to know that these advertisements intrude your head and you are forced to listen and not be able to cover your ears because your body is used as the device for making noise. There should be no justification to impede a person’s mind without consent, especially for impersonal reasons such as advertising. The pod cast stated that technology is being developed faster than the update on legal, moral and ethical ways of thinking about the new technology. This is what I think is standing problem. There should be some source of government to seek approval of new ideas in technology that significantly chances the world as we know it because ideas such as this one is really something, if approved, that people would have to learn to cope with. I am still in disbelief that mind is now subject to be impeded without approval.

Let's be creative

Written by Lily Syafikah Mansor

You want to edit and calibrate or add up the original creation but afraid to do so. Am I will violate copyright laws? Do I have to ask the creature if I want to add something? Did I violate the copyright law if I do so? All I want to do is just to intensify it and not intent to sell it but don't know how to do? Are these questions keeping playing in our mind? Here is the solution. Try common creative! Common creative is an alternative for people to share their work and together, we could make it better and yet interesting.. Common Creative is away different from copyright. Copyright is all right reserved which is the right is fully own by the creature as the moment they create it. People who want to use it have to ask permission from the owner while common creative is some right reserved which people could use or add it as long they don't use it for commercial. Ideas and design are example of intellectual property. Intellectual property is important like Lessig said in Code, "We protect intellectual property to ensure that we create a sufficient incentive to produce it". Like Lessig said, copyright law is regulated based on this. Common creative is regulated for people to share their work. In this world today, technology innovations sometime could make people violate the copyright law indirectly. For instance, people use Youtube as a medium for them to post their work. They might use other works without their permission. Is there anything we could do about it? There are too many people who are using Youtube and it's like impossible for us to take act on each of them. It is something good if people become more creative and we could developed such a productive community. Like I said earlier, common creative is a proper way to share works and thus could prevent us from violated copyright law.So let's be creative and use common creative.

Consumer Panopticon

Written by Lily Syafikah

Since I bought the shoes on Amazon.com, I keep receiving bunch of e-mails from them about the latest stuff on Amazon or sales about the things that I adore of. I was wondering how they were able to send me an e-mail relating with the items that I like and desire most. Then, I began to relate it with the things that I learn in classes. It is all about privacy. As I try to understand better what privacy is, I refreshed my mind of Lessig said, "Privacy was the limit the law placed upon the ability of others to penetrate your private space". Privacy is in fourth amendment as the protection from the unjustified burden of this indiscriminate search. Privacy is simply to constrain us from any intrusion and trespassing but that was long time ago. The farmer of the constitution is only a person and he/she could not predict the future. The world is developed and technologies innovations change this protection. Cyberspace is not a physical privacy as we could not see by our naked eyes. Technologies innovation right now is able to collect and compile our information about us. Under consumer panopticon, companies are capable monitoring behavior of consumer .Then, I found the reason why they could sent me an e-mail about things that could fascinate me because the moment I bought form Amazon, it is like I willing to share my personal information and I have been monitored by them for every details of purchase that I made .this is good for the companies as they could improve their business and as an alternative for them to make profit-making. In consumer perspective, as they willing to sharing their personal information, sometimes it can turn to bad things if the companies turn the information over to the government. The bright side for consumer is we could notify things that we desire. In my opinion, privacy is important because it is like our right to keep our personal and private information or to share it with someone else.

Protection of Copyright

written by Ikhwan Jamaludin (Intelectual Property)

Have you has a problem when you try to take someone idea but you feel guilty because of the idea is copyright reserved? Moreover, the idea of materials that you want to take must has the permission from the author before you can take the idea from the materials? Those questions arises because of the materials are copyright reserved. If we want to take someone idea to make it as a part of our idea, we couldn't and we can't. That is called copyright protection. There are several ways that we can take someone idea, but we must take in a proper way, means a legal way. For example: citation. Cited work is a legal way if we want to take someone idea, but we cannot completely to make the idea as our own idea, we can just make a part of it. It means the expression of an author's idea in order to emphasize or to support our idea. The idea of citation is actually the limitation of copyright protection. This idea had crossed to my mind when I read Richard A. Spinello book titled CyberEthics on page 95:

"Copyright protection has certain limitations considered to be in the public interest. One such limitation or "safety valve" is the "fair use" provision. For example, copyrighted literary works can be quoted and a small segment of a video work can be displayed for limited purposes including criticism, research, classroom instruction, and news reporting."

It means, the limitations convey us to the new world of expression of the idea. We keep the originality of the idea, at the same time; we express the idea in our own way. It can be criticism, learning of the class or commenting about the original idea. The expression of the idea is actually one sort of the ways granting us to overcome the problem of against the copyright reserved. We take the idea to express as well as keep the idea of itself. Instead of breach the copyright, we save the originality of the idea as an originalism to support the copyright reserved and make it possible to use it without any hesitation.

Art of Privacy

written by Ikhwan Jamaludin (privacy)

Everyone owns privacy and we know it we have the right of privacy. For me, privacy is a natural right that needs a protection. It looks like same with copyright that also needs a protection, but slightly different in the way we own it and protect it. Reflect to the tragedy of September 11, Bush and his legacy obviously blaming the accident came from terrorist which come from the Middle East country. What happen after they blame, are they investigating something to get a proof that the disaster happened come from Iraq or Afghanistan? The answer is none. But, there are a lot of efforts from them to prove it and they tried to track the terrorists which involve in making the tragedy of September 11 became a reality. How they tracking them? This matter will be analyzed as a violation of human rights. Let take one example from the reading we have made on page 303 and 304 in "The Shock Doctrine" written by Naomi Klein when she mentioned

As an exuberant article in the business magazine Red Herring explained one such program "tracks terrorists by figuring out if a name spelled a hundred different ways matches a name in a homeland security database. Take the name Mohammad. The software contains hundreds of possible spellings for the name, and it can search terabytes of data in a second. (The Shock Doctrine, pg 303)

It is amazing software and I salute to the person who invented the program. But, can you think, is it possible to find the terrorist through that way? There are thousands of people out there where they use Mohammad as their name and even my name also use Mohammad as my first name. So, does it means, I also can be charged as a terrorist? What a ridiculous. It is so unfair or even worse. If they do charge me, and peril me and my family, they have violated my privacy. So, there is no freedom in this 'Land of Free'. It just like, they promote freedom but they are the one who not practice it. If they do make a mistake arresting people, so they actually have violated the right of privacy. Naomi Klein also claimed this problem is also some sort of violating privacy when she responds to 'arresting of wrong person':

This potential of error is where the incompetence and greed that have been hallmark of the Bush years, from Iraq to New Orleans, becomes harrowing. One false ID coming out of any these electronic fishing expeditions is enough for an apolitical family man, who sort of looks like someone whose name sort of sounds like his (at least to someone with no knowledge of Arabic or Muslim culture), to be flagged as a potential terrorist. (The Shock Doctrine, pg 303 and 304).

So, when we talk about privacy, we actually talk about the relationship to the person with people surrounding him like his sisters, brothers, families, friends and others. This is natural right of humanity that has to be protected in very unique art of protection to preserve the right of the privacy of the person in real world.

Let Us Find The Way Out.

written by Aizat.

Earlier this morning I heard a devastating news from my friend when she claimed that her laptop needed to reformatted as it completely stopped functioning properly. It saddens me that almost all of her previous saved data lost just like in a blink of eyes. Fortunately, she managed to save some of her works into an external hard drive before that unfortunate event occurs to her. What would you feel then if that kind of incident happens to you without any necessary given warnings? I personally will cry if I forgot to save my foremost important data to somewhere else. The reason I'm telling you this not because I want you to always make a full data backup of your own laptop although it is recommended, but instead the idea behind that which is how somewhat viruses or any foreigner entity can easily penetrate through such system if not because of the leaking of one's personal information. This is what I believe happening to that friend of mine even though she may not buy it. My next question would be what should be done to conserve one's privacy as we cannot simply stop the expanding growth of the technological innovations? The answer to that question is not an easy one. You possibly will find many as up to hundreds of solutions, still that won't be sufficient enough to accommodate this situation or problem. One example, every time we are logging on to the internet using the laptop or other devices, we are using our own Internet Protocol (IP) address to do such task. This IP address which is in the form of code numbers serves as our main representative subject if we are going to surf whichever websites and subscribe to any program or application within the websites itself. If you think such action is safe, you are completely wrong about that. A person who is skillful in computer handling and normally called a hacker be capable of stealing much personal information just from your IP address adding with nowadays technologies such as Web tracking and data mining. From there, they can send viruses to your laptop to further stealing your personal information or just to corrupt the system. Though not all hackers are bad, but we cannot rely on the good ones to protect us from these illegitimate actions. The fact is, we as the internet user will keep using it although we know the bad side of it. The Internet brings us lots of advantages far greater than the capabilities of normal human being, so to keep using it, we need to find a way out to surpass those internet drawbacks and hence, keep our privacy in a good shape.

Can you define what is "Privacy" all about?

written by Aizat.

Biometric identification, video surveillance, Web tracking, and data mining are definitely without question, things that the framer wouldn't have the capabilities to imagine beyond what he or she could expect as the constitutions are built a long time ago. To put it simple, this is what the true power of technological innovations which before this people seem to take them lightly although in reality we know that they are an ever-expanding technologies. In this case, how far the constitutions are now going to protect us as citizen from such superior innovations? As Lessig points out, he regards constitution as an architecture which not just legal text but a way of life that structures and constrains social and legal power, to the end of protecting fundamental values. One of these fundamental values that I'm trying to stress out since the beginning is privacy. A massive development in the technological innovations has stripped out our privacy to the extent one can knows every single step that we do, where we are and even more extreme, what are we planning to do next. Can such things being considered as legitimate actions? "One of the first booms for the homeland security industry was surveillance cameras, 4.2 millions of which have been installed in Britain, one for every fourteen people, and 30 million in the United States, shooting about 4 billion hours of footage a year," writes Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine. Klein goes on to claim that "[w]ho's going to watch 4 billion hours of footage a year" (Klein 302). That once again triggers the inventors to create software that presumably can solve this problem. However, it turns out that this software creates more formidable problems that put one's privacy at a severe state. This condition shows that technological developments have gone far enough to outlaw the human right, right to maintain privacy as clearly stated in the constitutions.

Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law

Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law
Chris Johnson
I thought this speech was extremely interesting relevant to what is going on in today’s time. New technology has made so many things available that we have never even dreamed of, and now we are looking for a way to deal with the baggage that comes with it. Lessing argues that laws and regulations are keeping us from reaching our full potential, and on this topic I completely agree with him. At the same time, I believe that if you create something there should be laws to ensure that others don’t take advantage of your creations. Here is where the problem is. We must find a proper balance between protecting the creators AND the creativity of the people. Regulations are way too strict, and because of this we are hurting creativity. I love the story Lessig told about the chicken farmers and the airplanes. It is absurd to think that there would be a law against a plane flying over someone’s land, but this is something that our lawmakers actually considered. This is the problem with regulations today. We think regulations are helping us but they are actually doing more harm than good. That being said if you create something you expect that creations to be safe from someone else just taking it and using it as their own. This type of regulation is good, but when someone is attempting to create something and they can’t because these same laws that protect other’s works is holding them back this is not right and something has to be done about it.

Limitations to Creativity

written by Aizat.

According to John Locke, for something to be useful, you need to own it. Well, is that something refers to all creations and innovations produced by mankind or even beyond of what human limitations are. If that is the case, then I understand why copyright laws exist in the first place and how it relates to the intellectual property as in general. Intellectual property refers to the creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images and designs used in commerce. Under intellectual property law or copyright law, the creator of these abstract properties has certain exclusive rights for their own creation. This intellectual property rights provide the author or inventor a completely full control over their works preventing other people from making use or profit out of it without a necessary permission. Moreover, these rights are even considered by economists to be a form of temporary monopoly enforced by the state which what I can say equivalent to the capitalism trends we live under. The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The debates that have been running through all this time before and until now on are about the explicit effectiveness of such legislation. This matter is what worrying Lessig when he questioning about how copyright laws can exactly promote people to produce something "beautiful". The term "beautiful" here refers to any kind of creative or artistic innovation created by human beings. For such brilliant people with high skills of creativity, it's not a big deal for them to create things that have a lot of goods inside it or to produce things that can come out with a big profit along side of it. So then, how about the average people who try to cope with this creativity innovation process when their sources of ideas or knowledge are constrained in tightly manner. If there are no certain boundaries being injected to intellectual property law, then there will be not much future innovations that we can visualize.

Please, don't pick my rights…

written by Ikhwan Jamaludin (Intellectual Property)

This article is my intellectual property and it is also automatically copyrights reserved for me as an author of it. This is how copyright laws working. I have right on this article and it now has copyright that can last for my whole lifetime plus 70 years after I die. How I got this right? It was easy. I got this copyright protection because I created this article originally without any help from others and my work fixed in a lucid medium. Based on the reading of the CyberEthics book wrote by Richard. A. Spinello "copyright protects literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, architectural, audio, or audiovisual work from being reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright law also gives the copyright holder has the right to " to prepare derivative works based upon the copyright works,". I like to respond on what I've quoted above. It gives us protection on our own work. We deserve to have it because we own it. Our work is worthy for us. What will you feel if someone picks your work that take a long time to create it and make money from it? And even worse, you do not get any credit for it. It is unfair, and it is not ethical. Cyberspace is very wide medium of sharing. We can freely share some works, download music, watch movies and do something that against copyright laws if we take it from improper source. Let me show you an example that makes Lessig worries with. Do you know who Marie Digby is? She is a singer that has a spectacular voice. She has an album at first, but it is not enough to make her popular on the public environment. But, after she sang a song, a single from Rihanna titled 'Umbrella' and recorded it as a video on YouTube, she became very popular with over 8 million views through over the world including my country which is Malaysia. It was an amazing job that became very popular without cost you anything, but is it legal? Being a popular person by singing someone song without any permission and make money of it? It against on what we discuss in the class and also against what Lessig thought. Through the reading of CyberEthics on page 92, Spinello worry about the media sharing file when he wrote "The ease with which these digital media can be shared is of great concern to many copyright holders, who fear that they will have to sacrifice revenues as they lose control over their works". It now happens in front of our eyes without we realize it. I do really agree about copyright laws. It protects our works and it appreciates us as an author. Nonetheless, some people do not agree about the copyright laws in the cyberspace and they think the copyright in the cyberspace is like an anachronism. I do not really support that idea at first, but sometimes it make sense to me. So, we have to find solution about this matter. It is a huge deal to think of like what Lessig try to convey us to the Intellectual property in a balance circumstance. It means it can be privately own and at the same time it also can be publicly own. So, it will be automatically balanced between copyright minimalists and copyright maximalists that have been described by Pamela Samuelson in CyberEthics page 92 and 93. It looks easy to be balance in right, but it is hard for us to do it rather than us just to think of it. You have right to decide it.