This weeks readings included chapters 3, 5, 14, and 18 from The Social Media Reader. A common theme among all of these chapters was a discussion of the differences between “open source” and the proprietary model. Chapter 3 claims that throughout most of our history, technologies have been open source. Individuals have been allowed to freely add on and change these technologies to use however they see fit. However, with recent copyright laws that protect intellectual property, individuals cannot just take emerging technologies and change them however they want. The proprietary model protects the developer of intellectual property from others who may take their ideas and potential profit. As stated, “according to the proprietary ideology, innovation would not occur without a strong incentive system for the innovator to exploit for commercial gain (pg. 25).” The chapter further goes on to make some points against strong intellectual property rights. For example, strong intellectual property rights does appear to limit the amount of individuals that can bring in their own knowledge to produce new information goods. Proponents would argue that strong intellectual property rights might limit the creativity of our citizens.

Coming from a business background, this idea of open source does seem somewhat dangerous to me. However, I did find the readings interesting and I was surprised to find out just how much stuff their already is posted online for free use. I look forward to hearing everyone’s views on the issue tonight in class!

Another thing that stood out to me in this week’s readings was just how complex copyright laws are. We have already heard in class what a headache they could be, but chapter 14 discussed how even a lawyer specializing in intellectual property could not give the assurance that no laws were being broken when Eyebeam wanted to give away its Bright Idea Shade design based on the work of several designers in the 60’s and 70’s. Though it appeared to be a good idea, and there appeared to be customers willing to purchase the item, corporations were not willing to pour resources into the idea for fear that they might later be sued.

Chapter 18 of The Social Media Reader was also very interesting in its discussion of journal publications. This chapter discussed the idea bypassing for profit printing houses and placing scholarly findings online. It seems to me, that a “digital revolution” in scholarly research may allow individuals an outlet for new and exciting ideas that may not be accepted in mainstream journals. However, this is also one of the problems associated with the “digital revolution.” Publications of scholarly articles rely on peer reviews, but the peer review process is one thing that is lacking when it comes to the digital context. Also, even if all of our scholarly knowledge is posted for free online, it does not mean that it will be read. As chapter 18 pointed out, the power law distribution in the blogosphere may be instructive in this situation. As stated, “power law distribution ensures that the more material is placed online, the greater the gap between material that gets huge amounts of attention and that which gets merely average attention (pg. 264).” It is clear that some academics may not be ready for a switch to this digital context.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.