Globalization process is viewed as a means through which one can ratify often in extremely idealized form a account of oneself or culture that is observed as old or even origin but can lastly be realized: through these new means, one can become what one thinks one actually is (even if one never was). What might be trait of the Internet is that this ‘realization’ is certainly ‘expansive’. Globalization process has an emancipator technology ‘Internet’ that is indefensible as the structural design of the technology harbors an instinctive class prejudice and other shades of power entitlements.
Computers are intended and programmed by members of the elite culture and might imitate their cultural orientations and biases. For example, the wordsmith and semantic skills requisite to functions computers do not put up the cultural orientations of several marginal electorates. As Laikwan Pang, Cultural Control in journal said, “Culture’s will to copy … [is] fuelled by the globalization process, which drives’ the world to desire similar but different products, to acquire similar but different tastes”. (Laikwan Pang, Cultural Control, p8).
Globalization is as well redefining societies and restructuring society into new forms of social networks. New standards and terms for private and proficient relationships are promising (Buck 1996; Gates 1995; Baym 1995). The London Times (June 17, 1996) stated: “People in every kinds of career categories need to recognize how to use this tool so as to get ahead starting now. ” Admittance to the information freeway might establish to be less a question of dispensation or position than one of the fundamental capability to function in a democratic society.
Admittance to the cyberspace might very well establish how well people are knowledgeable, the type of job they ultimately get, and how they are retrained if they mislay their job, how much access they have to their government and how they will be taught about important issues concerning them and the country. (Ratan 1995: 25) Moreover, global media is not repressed by the intrinsic biases apparent in sexism, racism, and classism establish in face-to-face encounters. As a substitute, the global media presents a discussion that supports broad partaking and underlines merit over class.
Practical communities permit secluded individuals to converse in a manner that protects them from the social prospect and sanctions linked with physically distinct communities (Turtle 1995). Virtual societies are unified and significant social aggregations that permit people to take on in adequate relations to form personal and group relations (Rheingold 1993). Global media represents Hollywood that spins around the analysis of Hollywood’s division of labor, what the authors call the “New International Division of Cultural Labor” (NICL).
This division of labor is certainly international because U. S. film exports have reached $11 billion, and “Hollywood’s proportion of the world market is double what it was in 1990” (Miller et al. , 2001, pp. 4-5). Global sales have become so significant that in 2001 the studios take apart their international offices to run all global distribution from their headquarters. The authors argue that Hollywood’s command of the NICL distinguishes Hollywood from other industries that are increasingly globalizing. The entire book focuses on answering this question:
“Is Hollywood really giving the people of the world what they want, or does it operate via a brutal form of monopoly-capitalist business practice? ” (p. 15). Global Hollywood maintains that Hollywood’s global authority is due to the clout of its allocation, legal, and economic structures, as opposed to a combination of advantages resultant from the diversity of its domestic audience and its narrative transparency. As this argument has been frequently made by proponents of the cultural imperialism thesis, Miller and his colleagues take a fresh approach that focuses on what they call “occasionality” (p.
13), which is defined as “the specific `uptake’ of a text by a community” (p. 177). Amongst other innovations, the authors focus on the role of audience, and on the idea of rights, while bringing the significant issue of cultural hybridist to political economic analysis. In the short space of twenty five years somewhat which started as US defense inventiveness has developed into the major communications means for the academic and investigates community and most newly has prolonged into a main business tool for the marketable sector.
The Internet has developed throughout this period from being a vigorous and effectual way of exchanging information to offering a delivery means for immense amounts of multimedia information to a global audience. While individuals began to use the global media for worldwide communication, its profound effect on how we treat information transfer, organization, and development could not have been anticipated. Internet communication applications permit rapid and simple copy, revision, and transfer of information in textual, visual, and auditory forms.
Though the assortments of participants who access it do not all the time agree on whether information must be cosseted or shared, the majority of the Internet community uses, copies, and transfers the information there without restraint. The Internet is a medium for activating ideological consideration; World Wide Web (Web) documents holding multiple links to diverse authors’ sites as well as e-mail posts restraining various writers’ materials reify the theory that knowledge is raised from numerous sources.
But commercial units that use the Internet to promote products and spend in the materials that they load to the Web desire to keep their digitized materials from copy, revision, and transfer. The corporal operation of the Internet forms a forum where oppositional views concerning control of information collide. The extreme nature of the Internet supports a clash between the constructionist ideology that symbolizes the academic humanist community and the Romantic beliefs that symbolizes traditional legal community.
This junction amongst humanistic studies, the intellectual property law, and the Internet, joined with their attendant communities, engenders conflicts in thought and exploit and offers a generous basis from which to investigate intellectual property and information control. Though participants in humanist, legal, and global media communities retain varied ideological beliefs and goals, their common interests meet in forming and treating communicative terms, whether textual, digital, or auditory.
More significant, these communities of participants, communally, through socially raised ideologies, contribute in creating approaches toward authorship, possession, and property, and eventually, in generating the power to form and manage knowledge. The dealings amongst these areas can be viewed practically and hypothetically. Globalization, therefore, can tell us diverse stories of the nation state, developing it are relationally and challenged internal and external boundaries.
There would be few people concerned in globalization who would, as Green (1997:157) seems to propose, believe that ‘the nation state was disappearing’, even if it’s taken-for-granted status comes to be issued and attempts at self-reproduction become increasingly transparent. The spatial-temporal location of the nation-state is itself brought to the fore by globalization. Globalization is frequently taken to have a single course or logic that results in an augmented uniformity transversely the globe.
However, despite the influential effects of international capital and international media corporations, this is not sustainable and is not the stance adopted here. To presume that globalization is about, or results in, homogenization is to abridge the processes at work and, in a sense, to distance oneself from the very composite effects on space, place and uniqueness that globalizing processes bring to the fore. As Giddens (1990) among others suggests, as globalization has resulted in the spread of ‘Western’ institutions across the globe, that very drift produces a pressure for local independence and identity.
In other words, globalization is concerning examining places as concurrently traversed by the global and local in ways that have been strengthened by the modern compression of space and time. Thus, alongside the global accessibility of satellite television, McDonald’s and Arnold Schwarznegger films, there is the confirmation of, for instance, local, regional and ethnic identities. Certainly, some transnational companies have overtly adopted strategies of ‘globalization’, expanding their influence around the globe, as situating themselves and their products and services within the local conditions.
These might be a response to global influences, but they are however part of globalization and not a refutation of it. What this suggests is that in modern times the local is as much a condition for globalization as the global; space and place are negotiated by the global-local nexus of globalizes space-time compressions. ‘Time-space distanciation, disembedding, and reflexivity mean that composite relationships develop between local activities and communication across distances’ (Waters 1995:50).
The assimilation of the globe reconfigures rather than supersedes diversity. Globalization ‘does not essentially imply homogenization or integration. Globalization simply implies greater connectedness and de-territorialisation’ (Waters 1995:136). This problematisation argues that a particular Eurocentric culture can no longer be measured an ‘authentic, self-evident and true universal culture in which all the world’s people ought to believe’ (Lemert 1997:22)—a position which of course itself would not command universal acquiesce.
The cultural renaissance resultant from decolonization is the new face of autonomy in international law. Old definitions of freedom focusing on ethnic separation and tight territorial boundaries are becoming ever more outdated. The most interesting and pioneering ideas concerning self-determination are presently being developed by indigenous peoples. Theoretical discussions of prejudice, identity, individuality and universalism might seem remote and incoherent from harsh realities. But these debates do reveal why human rights themselves can spell awful trouble for indigenous peoples.
The effects of human rights, intellectual property, transformation and self-determination based on evidently ‘universal’ ideas of individuality and nationality can consequence in the death of indigenous communities. This is not a current phenomenon. It is the experience of colonization for too many people. And yet, international human rights discourse can also give a mechanism for anti-colonial struggles and the protection of indigenous rights, as the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations would certainly support.
Nowhere is the inconsistency of human rights, culture and individualism as explicit as it is with the rights of indigenous peoples. Moreover, the practical view offers questions and answers to the nuts and bolts of each day treatment of intellectual property power issues. Though interpretive in nature, the practical deportment is rule-based, centered in issues concerning the assortment of original works noted under the law and formative infringement of copyright.
An extensive variety of individuals use and produce copyrighted materials in their daily work, often ignorant of the consequences of their actions for probable infringement of the work of others or infringement by others of their own work. Engineers, technical communicators, computer scientists, architects, scientists, and educators, among others who characterizes our diverse national workforce, use and turn out intellectual products such as manual, applications, progress reports, yearly reports, analytical reports, and other technical documents.
They as well form non-textual informational materials such as photographs and hand drawn graphics, software, videos, and multimedia products. Additionally, numerous creators acquire information through the global media, together with digital communications such as e-mail and data blocks, as well as graphics, video clips, and sound bytes. Workplace inventors might not be conscious of the special category of law that restrains the rights in the work they turn out. Equally agency laws and the “work for hire” set of guidelines, which falls under copyright law, state writers’ rights to their work and treat questions explicit to employees.
Educators, particularly, are facing ever more intricate questions concerning forming and using materials for teaching. besides creating workplace products, educators also develop materials for classes in the forms of instructor package that comprise works copied from anthologies and journals, handouts, tests, and instructional transparencies or websites that might be derived from sources formed by other instructors or authors in their fields. The legal argument over what is considered infringement in using these “course packets” is massive. Instructors might also covet to use materials acquired from the global media.
The customary treatment of global media sources as “free use” forms fussy questions concerning what constitutes infringement in the digital ground. There is also enduring debate over the capability of a browser merely to access a World Wide Web site devoid of infringement. Several legal analysts indicate that the National Information Infrastructure’s White Paper comprises language that, if construed closely, would forbid admittance to intellectual property on the Internet although the same intellectual property would be available if it were in the shape of print media.
For instance, a stringent interpretation of the National Information Infrastructure’s (NII) White Paper would forbid the mere act of opening a file and reading it on the Internet as the act of producing text in digitized form needs making a “copy” of the original work. Though the White Paper was formed in 1996, its protectionist stance echoed in legislative development of copyright protection, wherein the No Electronic Theft Act (1998) criminalizes copyright violation and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (1999) expands copyright protection for a further twenty years.
In light of the more and more preventive treatment of copyrighted materials, instructors might be confused over whether they can make non-infringing uses of World Wide Web materials for classroom uses at all (Strong, William S. 1990). Increasingly, numerous instructors inquire students to copy and develop sources procured from the Internet, such as interactions from UseNet News, Internet Relay Chat, and MOOs, and graphics or text files that they can download from the World Wide Web.
Though fair use does not converse directly to questions concerning the Internet, it still controls questions of infringement within educational settings. Courts should instigate to apply fair use to issues that are convoluted by use of technology to give new instruction, but until then, prospective litigants looking for answers to complex legal questions must gain a clear considerate of existing law as the best means to recognize its possible interpretation in cases treating issues concerning the Internet. We can say that with the increasing use of internet the issue of Copyright infringement is also become very common.
“Infringement is a breach of the rights of a copyright holder by copying, performing, publishing, displaying, or creating a copied work from an expression protected under copyright” (Strong, William S. 1990). Infringement can take the form of a photocopy, scanned digitization, or other mechanically formed copy, but it can as well take place in videotape, audiotape, performance, or exhibit of a copyrighted work. Providing evidence infringement is at times a complex process, needing that the belligerent party first found a right to control the copyright of the work, then that he or she proves that the work has been infringed.
Infringement is further hard to prove while the accused infringer has distorted the work to such a degree that it is hard to sustain the considerable similarity argument and while the initiative and the expression are so wholly merged that use of the idea, which is obtainable in public domain, is corresponding to use of the expression. A more widespread defense aligned a claim of infringement; however, is the scenes a faire principle, which argues that general means of expression of ideas cannot be infringement of another’s work.
A typical example is the formal report format used in technical documents. In this case, the means of expression has turn so widespread to the business world’s cultural scaffold of understanding that its use summons connotative expression itself, much similar to a classification of “technical report. ” Copyright infringement elevates legal issues for Internet service providers as well as other global media caught up in network management. The law emerges to be moving away from strict accountability toward a new typical of “actual knowledge” (Packard, 1998).
In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are not legally responsible for copyright infringement if the bringer does not have definite knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing” (Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, Circular 92 Pub. L. 105 – 304, Sec. 512 [c]). Though, upon attaining such knowledge or wakefulness, the provider should act expeditiously to eliminate, or hinder access to, the material”.
This stipulation has free-expression insinuations. Copyright law is a moderately recent phenomenon based on the supposition that inspired intellectual property desires to be protected and rewarded (Packard, 1998). “By distinguishing that online services cannot scrutinize their content for infringing material and function professionally, Congress has given them a green light to expand to their full prospective” (p. 37). The copyright extension for elite ownership for ninety-five years, up from twenty-eight years in the original 1790 law, has been dared in court by Eldritch Press.
Under the new law, the publisher would be requisite to eradicate work that has been in the public domain under the preceding limit of seventy-five years. The global media and its technologies have offered fertile view for the creation of new communication technologies. Inventors functioning on such troubles as digital compression as well as network data-transfer speeds need patent protection to be capable to expand new products. Information technology has also taken a diversity of patent suits as inventors extend the new industry.
Lucent Technologies, for example, sued Cisco Systems and indicted it of infringing eight digital networking patents. Cisco then charged that Lucent violated three of its patents. Lucent holds thousands of patents on former Bell Lab and AT&T research operations, and analysts feared that the aggressive action by Lucent was threatening to smaller high-tech companies. Computer-chip giant Intel called a patent infringement action by TechSearch a nuisance lawsuit (Packard, 1998). As technology continues to become more multifaceted and consistent, patent disputes are probable to propagate.
Generally, most patent cases do not have a substantive collision on free expression. Thus the main features of the global media regime are linked to infringement and intellectual property concerns. The strategy for these aspects of the establishment is the principle that the costs of Internet-related infrastructural development shall be borne mainly by the private sector and the standard those governments shall entrust themselves to economic liberalization, privatization, and regulatory programs dependable with this and other regime principles.
As the utmost basis of legal conflict is that between authors’ and users’ rights, the most significant policy issue is cared for specifically in the Constitution’s intellectual property stipulation. The goal of the copyright act is to make sure free speech and the progression of knowledge through our legitimate protection of the right to distribute information. The unique constitutional provisions designate the intent to make sure the expansion of knowledge in civilization based in a congressional grant to authors of a partial monopoly of rights in their works:
The fair use stipulation makes clear that the key goal of the statute is to support learning. These changes notwithstanding, the divergence between authors’ rights and the goal to encourage knowledge, inner to the copyright debate since its setting up, continues. Sadly, the public policy issue is frequently ignored in respect to concerns over economic interests. The everyday application of law essentially focuses on treating conflict between individuals. Lawyers are trained specially to congregate the needs of the legal system and are inexpensively supported by their work in this area.
However the policy issues following the statute are really most significant to us as educators and to our society as a whole because those who manage the development of knowledge in a culture eventually establish who we are as a people. Philosophy and the goals that convoy it drive our view of policy issues. Thought determines how we view authorship, possession, and property and eventually affects not only how intellectual property law is proscribed but how information and communication that are inner to the dialogic processes within the nation are proscribed, as well as decisive who controls them.
An assessment of ideological choices in request to intellectual property thus renders significant understanding of the probable effect of the law on our cultural future. Gaining a considerate of intellectual property issues is inner to understanding our rights as users and producers of knowledge. The actions we acquire to influence egalitarian access to information can have enduring ramifications for society, as authorship makes control, control generates authority, and authority generates power.
We must take every step needed to ensure that the controlling voices of the few but authoritative are reasonable by the yet-unheard voices of the weaker multitudes. Reference: Baym N. K. 1995. The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. G. Jones, ed. , CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, pp. 13863. Buck K. 1996. Community organizing and the Internet. Neighborhood Works, 19, 2, p. 2.
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, Circular 92 Pub. L. 105 – 304, Sec. 512 [c] Gates B. 1995. The Road Ahead. New York: Viking Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press. Green, A. (1997) Education, Globalisation and the Nation State, London: Macmillan. http://www. washingtonwatchdog. org/rtk/documents/cong_hearings/senate/107/senatehearing107_77094. html http://www/stephenking. com Laikwan Pang`s 2005 article `Copying Kill Bill` social Text, No.
83, 133-153. London Times, June 17, 1996. Packard A. (1998). “Infringement or impingement: Carving out an actual knowledge defense for sysops facing strict liability”, Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs, no. 168 (December). Ratan S. 1995. Time (spring):25-26. Rheingold H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley. Strong, William S. The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: MIT P, 1990. Toby Miller et. al, 2001 `Hollywood`s Global Rights` in Toby Miller et. al. , Global