CC is for Creator’s Choice

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

[reprinted from Laurel L. Russwurm: CC is for Creator’s Choice]

I am amazed at how quickly technology has progressed to the point where we have the tools to inexpensively create and share all types of media. I think we may be at the point where the most expensive aspect of creating a piece of artistic media is the human labour. When I went to school for Media Arts (film, video, audio, a/v) that certainly was not the case. The equipment was expensive: we could sign out Nagra sync sound recorders that I recall cost a great many thousands of dollars, particularly for struggling students. And the cost of Film stock was very very expensive.

film

Which is why I was so incredibly impressed with filmmaker Robert Rodriguez‘ Cinderella tale of becoming a feature film director. His ingenuity allowed him to make El Mariachi for much less than the going rate if making a movie trailer.

Rebel without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker With $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player was terrific. Not just because the book is as well written a “making of” as you’re likely to find, but because young Rodriguez figured out how to become a feature film maker by thinking outside the box. He bypassed the crushing weight of the most expensive part of film making: the cost of film stock and prints for distribution.

[Even cooler, Rodriguez was willing to talk about it and share his insights with other filmmakers in an attempt to help those coming after.]

As it happens, the digital revolution which followed substantially lowered the barriers to entry and today digital imaging is the next thing to free. Movie theaters are switching to digital transmission for the same reasons.

[Note to filmmakers: You can still learn lots about film making from Robert Rodriguez' Film School Shorts.]

music

It used to cost tens of thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars to outfit a music recording studio. So naturally cutting a record was a pricey affair.

Once all the tracks were laid down and mixed you had the associated costs of artwork, pressing and distribution. An expensive proposition.

But just like the film world, media technology has gone digital and today, if you’re organized, it is possible to cut a full length commercial CD in a professional studio for around a thousand dollars. A tech savvy musician can DIY commercial quality product in their basement for next to nothing.

the written word

Big changes are afoot in the world of newspapers and magazines. It used to be that the only market for short fiction and nonfiction articles used to be newspapers and magazines (with the occasional second life collected in book form). Like the music and movie industries, magazines and newspapers were in business by virtue of owning the infrastructure (print facilities and distribution).

The same was true of book publication. Certainly publishers have editorial staff. They employ readers and editors and typesetters. One of the best books I’ve read on screenwriting was written by Syd Field, a Hollywood reader who distilled what he learned as a reader into practical writing advice in a book called Screenplay.

The editorial staff edits and assembles the product. One important function they have traditionally provided was to filter out the very best material. And never forget that the addition of editorial input often improved the work. Traditionally there has been lots of expertise in the publishing industry, but the bottom line was always that the guy who owns the presses and the distribution network is the guy in charge. The most brilliant book editor could always be over ruled by the publisher. (Or the publisher’s girlfriend.)

There is great deal of turmoil in all types of publishing today as the entire world has been altered by the Internet and the accompanying technology.

media evolution

In real terms this media revolution– not just for film or music but photography, writing, software and art– really anything that can be digitally reproduced — has made it possible for pretty much anyone to be a media creator. The monetary costs involved boil down to the initial outlay necessary for equipment and digital storage. After that the outlay is minimal

I remember when a blank video tape cost $20. That could hold one movie you taped off TV. Of course that was back in the day when the cable companies encouraged Canadians to use this new technology to “time shift.” Today that’s one of the many diverse activities that are lumped together under the umbrella label of ‘piracy.’

About ten years ago or so I remember my sister had an unimaginably huge hard drive – far and away the largest of anyone I knew — on her computer. Today that 2 gigabyte drive is laughably tiny. At this point 2 gigabyte flash drives are routinely used to transport assignments between school and home (and probably at the low end).

And now I just read Michael Hart‘s observation about his seventy five dollar “terabyte pocket drive” (for books digitized by Project Gutenberg) that is:

no larger and not much heavier than a book, and it will hold 2.5 million such books in .zip format.”

–Project Gutenberg: Timeline Events

One of the interesting things I’ve learned about recently from Wayne Borean’s excellent series on Copyright in his Through the Looking Glass blog, where Wayne describes this kind of revolutionary technology that changes the way the world functions as a “Disruptive Technological Change“.

Add the Internet to the mix and you have a perfect distribution medium that’s virtually free. [With the proviso that net neutrality is protected Internet access won't be degraded via 'throttling' and and carrier/ISPs won't be able to price it out of the range of ordinary people with Usage Based Billing.]

This means we’re living in a world where we can all create.

Under Canadian copyright law any art we create is automatically protected under copyright law.

Since we all have the ability to be both content creators and distributors as well as content consumers, every citizen needs to have a say in the copyright debate and the eventual revision to our copyright laws.

Copyright = All Rights Reserved

The thing about art and culture is that it is for sharing. I can’t think of any art in any medium that is created out of a vacuum. Everything is built on something else. This has been going on since the beginning of time. Before we had written words, verbal histories were handed down.

We are all informed by our culture; all creators are influenced by others. Everything we learn, everything we see, hear, feel and touch goes into our experience pool and will have an effect on our creations. Shakespeare’s plays are re-mixes of other works, and today we would call the Brothers Grimm Fairy Tale aggregators. In their day they had to physically travel all aver Europe to gather up all the best stories. Today we just need a good search engine and enough bandwidth to get it done.

A standing joke firmly rooted in reality is that the only way to sell a movie idea to Hollywood is by comparing it to another.

And have you ever noticed that an overwhelming majority of Disney theatrical feature films are based on stories in the public domain?

Corporate agendas have been pushing for increasingly rigorous copyright law, detrimental to creators. What’s good for a corporation that controls copyright is not necessarily good for the artists who created the copyright work. As a creator I think copyright terms we have alone in Canada are seriously detrimental to creators.

Which is why I am extremely grateful for the development of Creative Commons Licenses that offer creators a variety of alternatives.

Creative Commons licensing is a marvelous tool that allows creators to get around the detrimental and restrictive aspects of copyright law. Creators can release their work in the way that they want to.

The reason I love Raffaella Traniello’s film so much is because it does such a good job getting the message across. Every song I’ve heard, every movie I’ve watched, every picture I’ve seen, every bit of art I’ve ever been exposed to, everything that has danced across my senses has been absorbed and makes me who I am. The creativity of others has become part of my life experience, and as it’s distilled through my unconscious and forms the basis of my own creativity. No art comes out of a vacuum; it collaborates with a culture. Art needs to share and be shared, which is why I believe that the current copyright law has already gone too far.

Creative Commons License = Some Rights Reserved

Some Rights Reserved

Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and the public domain. From all rights reserved to no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while allowing certain uses of your work — a “some rights reserved” copyright.

– What is CC

I try to generate all the images for all my own blogs, but sometimes that simply isn’t possible. At this point with everything that’s happening in copyright law around the world, I’m less inclined to want to use “fair dealing” images; particularly as what is covered may well change. So any time I do an image search, I search for Creative Commons licensed Images. When searching either Google Images or Flickr Images you can select “advanced search” and choose “labeled for reuse”. Most if not all images in Wikimedia Commons are released under a CC license. And now the Creative Commons search page can direct your searches as well.

Attribution (cc by)

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.

Attribution Share Alike (cc by-sa)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

Attribution No Derivatives (cc by-nd)

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

Attribution Non-Commercial (cc by-nc)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (cc by-nc-sa)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.

Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (cc by-nc-nd)

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

Creative Common Licenses don’t replace copyright law, they work in conjunction with existing copyright law.

A Creative Commons license allows creators to tailor the license to balance their comfort level with the needs of their project.

The greatest thing about CC Licensing is that it gives choices back to creators.

Image Credit:

Robert Rodriguez photograph under a Attribution Sharealike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) by Thomas Crenshaw

Lynn Russwurm‘s photograph “The Laurie Bauer Singers in recording studio – circa 1970s” used with permission

Raffaella Traniello video under an Attribuzione 2.5 Italia license

Charles Robinson illustration of Oscar Wilde’s “The Nightengale and the Rose” is in the public domain; one of many great works preserved via digitization by Project Gutenberg

“Cory Doctorow” photograph by Joi Ito under a CC attribution (cc by) license

“Sita Sings the Blues” Nina Paley – Creative Commons CC BY-SA

“Hallo Fräulein” cartoon oreillyblog cartoon (CC) BY-ND dyfa 2009

Ahead Stop image by XKCD. CC BY-NC 2.5

Performous Songs: Jonathan Coulton Collection available for legal download ZIP file (240 MB)under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike License (cc by-nc-sa) via Performous Songs

“Big Heads” aka The Oxfam G8 Big Heads at Big Letters Performance by Oxfam (by-nc-nd)

G+ Censorship

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

In spite of misgivings about Google’s domination of the Internet, a little while back I decided to give g+ a chance. But at the moment it looks like g+ doesn’t really want my content.

When I decided to start an “Author Page” I determined to post the same content across three platforms (on Facebook, on g+ and self hosted on the open web). Like all such pages, my “Author Page” exists to promote my personal “brand” as a self-publishing author. I do that by talking about writing. Today’s post is on my self hosted page and on Faceboook, but g+ has slapped a filter on it, and is “holding it for review” … is it because I have too many links? Or is it because some of them link to Facebook?

I’ve been putting effort into incorporating as many links as are appropriate in every blog post I’ve written since I began blogging in 2009. It’s a lot of work, but hyperlinks are one of the things that make the Internet so valuable. If Google is going to penalize me for this, what good is it?

If you want to see what the fuss is about, you can read my post on Faceboook or on the self-hosted page, just *not* on the g+ Author Page.

I clicked the button saying I want thie post reviewed. It’s all up to some Google staffer to decide whether I can publish my work there. Some faceless total stranger will determine whether or not my work gets published in Google’s proprietary space. One click is the only self defense plea I get. Is it worth it to me to fight for this?

This is a shining example of why we need an open Internet. Because if the day comes when Google controls the Internet, there won’t be any alternatives.

UPDATE: I’m pleased to announce that Google+ has released my article from purgatory, and it’s now publicly avaialble on g+.

Although the speed of the turnaround is gratifying, it is disturbing that web platforms like Google+ wield such power over the users who provide such valuable content. Corporations should not have the power to censor people.

Know Where The Links Go

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

The Internet exists to make sharing easy, and very often that is a good thing. But before you share, you should be aware of where you are sending your family and friends. If there are links to click on the thing you are sharing, you should click them first, so you know where they go.

A friend of mine just shared a security video montage showing all kinds of nice things that were accidentally caught on security camera footage.

Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Not me.

Me, well, it makes me feel very uncomfortable. A little bit creepy. Knowing that the world is filled with security cameras recording our every move. Big brother is watching you. (Now would be a very good time to read or re-read George Orwell’s classic novel, Nineteen Eight Four“)

Security cameras are deliberately placed as inconspicuously as possible. The law requires signs posted telling us they are there, but they are usually pretty inconspicuous too. The idea, of course, is to catch crooks in the act as they rob the store or paint the graffiti or break the window. If the crook knows its there, they would very likely put the camera out of commission. And, naturally, security cameras only catch stupid crooks.

But security cameras also show ordinary people going about our ordinary lives.

Before a professional photographer can publish photos of models, or even ordinary people walking down the street they need to get permission from the people they are photographing. The model must sign a release form. Even newspapers get permission from their subjects. Without it they can face legal challenges. Because people are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If I rob your store, it’s a different situation. I’ve broken the law, and my reasonable expectation of privacy doesn’t extend to the store’s security video. So the video can be used by law enforcement to identify me and bring me to justice.

But if my boyfriend kisses me on a park bench, what right does some guy with a security video have to put that moment of casual intimacy into a film?

Do you think any of the people in the video gave permission?

Do you know what a video camera looks like? There are many different kinds.

Are you aware of the cameras pointed at you in so many places? Anonymous cameras we often don’t even see. Cameras that secretly record us at work or play. Walking down the street, buying gas, paying a untility bill.

And who is behind these cameras?

Who is recording you as you walk your toddler past the camera? Who knows? I don’t.

If we don’t know who they are, how can we know what they do with the video? Who is watching the watchers? After the video is made, do they get rid of it if nothing untoward happened? Or is the footage being used in different ways… as the film in this video so clearly was. People had to pore over an awful lot of security video to discover the bits that have been edited together to make this film.

So is it okay if they make a nice “feel good” short film that shows all the nice things unsuspecting people were caught doing on “security video”?

The only credit at the end of the video is for a website called Love Everybody. So I looked there, and although it has a page of videos, this one is not displayed. Very probably because it was made without the permission of the subjects, and maybe even because using the song for the soundtrack is copyright infringement, which would result in a DMCA copyright takedown notice.

Why is this particular video floating around on Facebook?

Well, if you click one of the links, it takes you to the person who posted it, the person who is using this video. This person doesn’t have any problem with using a video made without the permission of the people in it. Or to copyright infringement. Because this person has no qualms at all about getting my friend to send her family and friends on Facebook to his real reason for posting the video. He is earning up to $237 Per Day because he’s getting her to work for him for free.

Every time this video is shared, it sends the unsuspecting to his ads: “FREE VIDEO! Discover How I Earn Up to $237 Per Day from Home Using Just My Facebook Account…”

Whenever you share anything on the Internet, even on Facebook, you should consider whether you have been fooled into selling your friends eyeballs.

Update: I decided to check YouTube for “security video” and found the film there. Turns out that this is actually a Coke commercial (although the facebook user who is using it to drive customers into his lair seems to have done away with the advertising logos).

Presumably Coke did in fact shoot this video to make it appear to be security video. If they didn’t, and you happen to be the guy dancing in the aisle but have never signed a release, you can probably sue the company. If you’re Coke you can certainly squash the guy who is using your film to drive business his way on Facebook.

There are, alas, an awful lot of security videos making it to YouTube.

Coca-Cola Security Cameras

inappropriate

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

There is a huge uproar going on in the tech community just now.

Email delivery company SendGrid has fired developer evangelist Adria Richards after she tweeted her annoyance at sexual jokes made by developers during the Pycon conference. One of the joking developers was also fired.

Some men are vociferously defending their right to free speech.

But Adria Richards didn’t suppress their free speech, she replied with free speech of her own. If you’re going to make the Free Speech defense, you have to grant her the right to free speech. Otherwise its a double standard.

Others complain she was eavesdropping. But if the gentlemen were speaking loud enough for her to hear them in a public place, that doesn’t exactly fly.

Some women are absolving the men, and bashing Adria Richards, who they think is making it worse. For them. But turning a blind eye to sexism or racism may give an illusion of safety, but it helps entrench the inequity of the “gentleman’s agreement” that allows it to persist.

The ensuing storm of insult, acrimony and threats simply proves to illustrate the point:

lewd jokes have NO place at a PROFESSIONAL tech conference.

what was so wrong?

Two men were sitting in the second row of a professional conference, making jokes during a presentation. They were clearly speaking loudly enough for people in the front row to hear their commentary during the presentation. [Although the intention of the comments has been defended, it has been acknowledged that the comments reported were actually made.]

Putting the gender issue aside, making jokes during a presentation is disrespectful to the presenter and the audience around you. Most people attend such presentations because they want to hear the presentation, not the class clown heckling in the audience. Running commentary may be fine in your livingroom, but not a movie theatre or conference because it interferes with the presentation.

The behaviour itself is inappropriate, unprofessional and juvenile.

Some people think she should have confronted them then and there. But this was happening during a presentation. Had she asked them to stop, would they? Or would it “make a scene” and disrupt the presentation even further?

It is also very clear that women in tech are very much in the minority. It can be physically dangerous to speak out when you are physically surrounded. The fact that Adria Richards has subsequently received physical threats against her person indicates this was in no way an unreasonable concern.

There is no doubt Adria Richards was particularly disturbed by the sexual nature of the conversation behind her. She felt attacked, so she struck back in self defense. It would have seemed a reasonable course of action to photograph the culprits and publicly shame them on Twitter.

two wrongs

Yet it appears that the men intended no offense.

The thing is, that doesn’t matter. Because Adria Richards felt victimized. When people feel attacked, it’s human nature to defend ourselves. She struck back with the tools at hand. Even if she may have over-reacted.

Very often people accustomed to being bullied become more sensitive. A word or action can feel like an attack even if that isn’t how it’s meant. Humans may misinterpret the situation, but it doesn’t make our feelings less real. She was right to stand up for herself.

What I do have a problem with is that Adria Richards published identifiable photographs of people on the Internet without their permission. Even if they are in a public place, it seems to me to be an invasion of privacy. Which is why I think her response was in the wrong.

I made a similar argument some time ago about the Reddit creepshots issue. Reading mr. hank’s apology, it is easy to see that he, too, feels victimized. Most particularly because she smiled when she took the photograph. That would have made him feel she was laughing at his jokes. Yet smiling is often defensive.

don’t make a right

Still and all, I don’t think either of them should have been fired. This is a conversation we need to have, because there should be more women in technology. Both parties made mistakes. The clever ones learn from our mistakes.

But problems don’t get solved by agression and polarization. Attacking people for speaking up won’t change anything, it just makes it worse. It’s like running into a wall. We don’t need a gender war, we need to stop villifying and start understanding.

Perhaps everyone needs to take a deep breath and read the The Code of Conduct adopted late last year by the Python Software Foundation precisely because attitudes need some adjusting. Because people do need to feel safe. Sexual innuendo can be a way of flirting, or male bonding, but it simply has no place in the workplace.

Even when the workplace is a software convention.

Globe & Mail Should Understand Issues Before Editorializing

Posted on January 24, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

locked file cabinet key (cc by laurelrusswurm) Most of us are in a position of having to trust others with our private data.

If we send our kids to college, we expect the institution to protect their private data like SIN numbers and other identifiers, to keep them safe from identity theft. Most of us don’t have the technical expertise to know if this private information is being kept safe. If this information is not maintained securely, and the institution does not fix the problem, we need to know about it.

This is why the Globe and Mail editorial When did it become wrong to punish hackers? is so disturbing.

First, there is misinformation about the Aaron Swartz case, which the editorial writer seems somehow to be using to bolster its position. It doesn’t fit with the article content, but it was certainly sensational.

Fact: Aaron Swartz did not steal anything. He was legally entitled to access, download and copy the documents. It wasn’t even copyright infringement. His only actual legal transgressions were his breach of JSTOR’s terms of service (the agreements we all click “I agree” to without reading) by downloading in bulk and using an unlocked MIT closet. This excesssive prosecutorial overkill is why people like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig characterized the charges and prosecution of Aaron as prosecutorial bullying.

Funny, they could have used Canada’s own Byronn Sonne case, which was also famously misunderstood. Not so long ago Canadian Byron Sonne lost a couple of years of his life to a similar combination of prosecutorial overkill and technical ignorance. He was truly fortunate to have his trial before a judge capable of learning enough about the technology to understand the issues. I would have hoped that the Globe might have learned a little something from that.

More information (actual facts, even) can be found about the incident in the earlier GEEKOsystem article about the expulsion of student Ahmed Al-Khabaz Canadian College Student Points Out Major Security Flaw, Obviously Gets Expelled for Doing So

What it boils down to in this instance, is that, when the students pointed out the security hole to Dawson College, it was the school’s job to fix it. Telling students not to do that anymore might stop them, but does not fix the problem.

Years ago a friend of mine noticed an inadvertently open vault door after the mall’s bank branch was closed for the night. She was a little concerned (her money was in that branch) so she notified the bank the next day. Should she have been charged for pointing out the problem? The bank thanked her and fixed the problem. The Dawson College response outlined here would be the equivalent of telling my friend to pretend she didn’t see the open vault rather than fixing the problem.

I’m totally lost as to where copyright comes into this at all. And the only privacy issue appears to be the Dawson College failure to fix the security hole pointed out by the students. This is an institutional failure to secure the private data on its system ~ entrusted to Dawson College ~ and thus a failure to protect the privacy of the students.

The Globe would do well to ensure its editorial writers understand the issues they write about.

emotional blackmail on facebook

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

Not a week goes by without one of these messages appearing in my Facebook timeline.

“Posting for those who have to deal with health issues everyday: I’m posting this because recently I have been mocked and laughed at for things beyond my control. I CARE…I have one of these illnesses as does others in my family…. Not one of my Facebook friends will copy and paste (but I am counting on a true family member or friend to do it). If you would be there for me no matter what then copy and paste this. I’m doing this to prove a friend wrong that someone is always listening. I care. Hard to explain to someone who has no clue. It’s a daily struggle being in pain or feeling sick on the inside while you look fine on the outside. Please put this as your status for at least 1 hour if you or someone you know has an invisible illness (Crohn’s, PTSD, Anxiety, Arthritis, Cancer, Heart Disease, Bipolar, Depression, Diabetes, Lupus, fibromyalgia, MS, AS, ME, , Epilepsy, Autism, M.D.,D.D.D., CFS, Histiocytosis, RSD, PBC, SOD etc.) Never judge what you don’t understand!

Even though the message is often some cause or sentiment I would support otherwise, the fact that it’s couched in terms of emotional blackmail. That just makes me angry. So I never repost the status message, although sometimes I tell the person posting it why.”

“Not one of my Facebook friends will copy and paste (but I am counting on a true family member or friend to do it”

This type of implied social coercion makes these messages into the digital equivalent of a chain letter. Yes, it will often browbeat someone into doing what you ask, but I’m sure it leaves a sour taste in their mouth. The resentment that this subtle form of bullying causes is probably far worse for the cause the poster is trying to rally support for.

So where do these messages actually come from?

Because users are asked to cut and paste them, there’s no way of tracing them back to the point of origin. So we can’t ever know for sure. But I’m guessing that this is actually a campaign begun by Facebook. After all, the people we can emotionally blackmail are those closest to us in our social strata.

And that data is worth money to Facebook.

Image Credit
I created the phony avatar above for my character Amelia’s character page on the “Inconstant Moon” serialization site.

DIY Resources

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Laurel L. Russwurm

Free software exists because people create it, and want to share. Why do people create their own software? Quite often, its to “scratch an itch”… if the software you need doesn’t exist, sometimes you have to make it yourself.

One of the cool things is that the free software community is really community. People who know are almost always willing to help people who are just learning.

In my geographic locality of Waterloo Region there is a monthly Ubuntu Hour in both Kitchener and Waterloo. These meetings, held in a local coffee shop or restaurant, help form free software communities, and allowing new free software users to connect with more experienced users.

The local Linux User Group has monthly presentation meetings to explain various software/hardware (I am actually writing this at the Kitchener Waterloo Linux User Group (or KWLUG) meeting where someone from the local KWARTZlab makerspace is showing off a Raspberry Pi computer.)

It’s also possible to find like minded groups throughout the world with the MeetUp web site.

Not everyone is equipped to write their own software.
I myself am nowhere near writing my own software, but I have been learning to fiddle with things so that I can get closer to achieving what I want to achieve. Before being brave enough to even contemplate such a thing, most of us might set up our own Facebook page.

You may have spent some time finding the right blog theme (or template) that most closely sets up your blog so it is laid out the way you want it to be.

When I first started making my first web page, the most amazing tool for me was the online HTMLdog online tutorials, which is still my main resource for XHTML and CSS.

For JavaScript there is something called Code Academy.

If there is software that you want to learn to use, or even just how to do a tiny fix, particularly for open source or free software, chances are there is some online tutorial, perhaps even video tutorials, to show you how.

If you’re on a social network, like Identi.ca, Friendica, Diaspora, Twitter, reddit, or even google+, you can often find the answers you need. Addressing a query to “lazyweb” on Twitter will often turn up the answer you need.

And of course, you can always try typing your question into the search bar of your favourite Search Engine (my favourites are DuckDuckGo and ixQuick

Online Accessibility

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Laurel L. Russwurm

When we talk about accessibility issues, it usually means accessibility for people with disabilities. The internet has tools like speech readers, that can make it accessible for the blind. Subtitles or closed captioning can make online video accessible for the deaf. I learned early in my blogging career that typing a description in the alt=”" field, allows speech readers to tell visually impaired users what images I use. It’s a little more work, but it’s worth it if I can make my contect accessible.

But there are other accessibility issues that have nothing to do with disability.

standards

Internet standards are still evolving, but the internet works, because at its heart, every web page uses a programming language called HTML. Just as every email we receive should be readable, every website we visit should work, no matter what browser we are using, because the data is in HTML.

making html inaccessible

I just went to check out a website called C.A.C.P./A.C.C.P. Official website. Although I am using this particular site as an example, this is certainly not the first time I have been annoyed by a website that wants me to remake my computer to accommodate it.

I’m pleased to see this official Canadian Website is bilingual. But this is what I see:

security

The large yellow square in the middle of the webpage indicates this is something NoScript has blocked. NoScript is a browser plug-in that prevents Javascript and Flash from running unless I grant it permission. Javascript allows files to execute, or run, on your computer. That’s one way people get viruses and spyware. NoScript blocks such “active” content, but if I choose to trust the source, I can decide to allow it with a mouse click. The other thing I tend to avoid is Flash for a couple of reasons.

cost

Flash video consumes a fair bit of bandwidth; so if your internet use is capped, as many are these days, NoScript allows you to decide whether to display the flash ads or video on your computer.

freedom

For me the more compelling reason is that Flash is proprietary software, and as a free culture advocate I prefer my web content in free or open formats.

my choice

If I do want to see this video, I can choose to click on the letter f in the centre of the page and grant it permission. But this is my first time here. Why would I do that? I don’t know this site, or who runs it personally. Is it really run by CACP? Why should I trust it? Do I have a compelling reason to gamble my computer security?

Not hardly.

Then I look at the text displayed under the blocked video.

Our site is best viewed with Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer 7.0. To view and use this page and aspects on other pages Macromedia Flash Player is required.
To download this plugin visit www.macromedia.com.
© 2008 CACP/Ribbet Inc. If you have difficulty with the website contact the Webmaster

I should not have to use a particular browser to see a web page display properly.

Or worse, download specialty software to use it.

Instead of telling me that I have to use a particular browser, if the web designer was doing her job, the page should display properly on any browser.

If it’s a mess, I’m certainly not going to switch browsers to something one website tells me I must have. If I had to do that for every website I visited, I might not have room for my own files on my computer. Besides, I prefer to learn from those who know what they are doing, and try to avoid taking direction from those who don’t.

And of course, Macromedia Flash Player is proprietary software owned by www.macromedia.com, so that is hardly in keeping with my free software leanings. The webmaster might have chosen an open format like OGG Theora or the new HTML5 instead. But even if they choose to make their video available in such a closed format, if they want to make the site accessible, the web page shouldn’t be broken, as this page is.

To make it work, at minimum there needs to be text providing a synopsis of what is in the video. The best case scenario would also include the full text of the script along with any necessary written description of the visual content.

If they want to make it accessible, that is.

If they don’t want to make it accessible, if the sense of entitlement is such they believe they have the right to dictate such things to vistors, they can tell us that we must conform to their demands if we want to see the content. Their way or the highway.

Of course, this is a little nicer than some, because there is a small “skip this intro” link in the top left corner of the screen. This way I can skip over the content they can’t be bothered to make accessible.

Personally, I’d rather just skip it.

Images You Can Use

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Laurel L. Russwurm

Because of the changes to copyright law over the last few decades, it has become increasingly dangerous to make use of the media that we find on the Internet. Copyright infringement is against the law in Canada and most, if not all, of the world.

So even though a wealth of music is available for download, and great photographs can be easily cut and pasted online — doing so may well result in allegations of copyright infringement — which could result in having your booth at the local fair raided by the RCMP. or your blog or website might be taken down.

The only sure way to avoid risking such a terrible fate is to only use only those images that you have permission to use.

Copyright

In Canada by default, all creative work is automatically covered by copyright. Creators don’t have to register their work, or even mark it © Copyright.

Fair Dealing

Canadian law provides specific “fair dealing” exceptions to copyright that are supposed to allow us to make use of copyright works in certain circumstances. These exceptions are not clearly defined, and may leave the user open to allegations of copyright infringement. Even if you believe your use falls under fair dealing, a court may not agree.

New Law

Worse, in Canada, our government recently passed Bill C-11, which will radically change Canadian copyright law. Once in force it will be some time before the courts, copyright scholars and IP lawyers hammer out what it really means and how it actually applies. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not wind up as a “test case” in court.

Getting Permission

We don’t need permission to use any of our own original creations, whether it is original artwork we make, any original photographs we take, or any original music or video we record.

Assuming you can figure out a way to get in touch, you can try to get permission from that record lable to use their hit song as the sound track to your home movie. And maybe they’ll give it to you. But then you would probably need additional permissions to upload it to YouTube, and maybe they won’t give it to you.

A much easier way to get permission is through a license from the creator/copyright owner. Since I am not a lawyer, I find that this is the safest course, to use only works released under a license that allows people to use, share or modify the work. Although there are other licenses available, Creative Commons licenses are popular, widely recognized and relatively easy to find.

Finding Licensed Images

Internet search terms:
or, what to type in the search bar

In any search engine, and on any site that has its own search bar, you can probably search for “creativecommons” or “Creative Commons” “by” or “by-sa”

You can usually type more than one word, separated by spaces or by +
You can usually search for a phrase by enclosing it within quotation marks.

Google

On the Google Search Page choose “Images” from the tab along the top.
Then type the words that best describe the image you want in the search bar then click the little blue magnifying glass symbol beside the search bar.

Now there are new choices offered at the top right hand side of the page, including a tab which allows you to change the “Safe Search” parameter, and beside that is the tab we want, which is marked with a circular graphic (that I believe is supposed to represent a gear).

Click the gear icon, then choose “Advanced search” from the drop down menu, and scroll down to “usage rights”. To the right you’ll find a tab with Google’s default “not filtered by license.” Clicking that gives you the choices:

free to use or share
free to use or share, even commercially
free to use, share or modify
free to use, share or modify, even commercially

Select the use that best describes your requirements, then click the “advanced search” button.

Flickr

Although many of the image results returned by Google are from the popular Flickr photo sharing site, you will find even more if you look there directly there yourself.

On the the Flickr search page choose “advanced search” then scroll down to check off “Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content” where you can choose:

Find content to use commercially, or
Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s Wikimedia Commons has a vast repository of both creative commons licensed and public domain material.

Jamendo ♫

If you’re looking for music specifically, all the music available on the Jamendo website carries a Creative Commons license. I’m not sure what the percentages are today, but a year or so ago fully 25% of the music available on Jamendo was released under the freest Creative Commons attribution only license. (CC by).

Internet Archive

A final place that hosts an incredible amount of material you can share freely would be the Internet Archive.

Happy SysAdminDay

Posted on July 27, 2012 by Laurel L. Russwurm

SysAdmin means “System Administrator” which is the fancy name for your “computer guy” (who may actually be a computer gal).

Most of us are computer “users” who rely on SysAdmins to keep our computers running, our email flowing, and everything connected to the Internet. These unsung heroes have their own appreciation day, which is today’s SysAdminDay.

Tell your SysAdmin “thanks!”

To learn more about these unsung professionals, watch “The I.T. Crowd“

techDITZ

making sense of tech stuff