Difference between revisions of "Talk:CSE590TU"

From CSEP590TU
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing)
(→‎Fair use: parody vs. satire)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU.  This is for general comments and announcements for the class.  If you have a comment on a specific topic or lecture, please visit the [[Main_Page#Lecture_Notes_and_Discussion | lecture-specific page]].  Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.
 
Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU.  This is for general comments and announcements for the class.  If you have a comment on a specific topic or lecture, please visit the [[Main_Page#Lecture_Notes_and_Discussion | lecture-specific page]].  Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.
  
−
== Talk on Electronic Voting for MS Employees ==
+
== Talk on Does IT Matter for MS Employees ==
  
−
There is going to be a talk given on electronic voting by a Microsoft researcher for Microsoft employees on October 18th. You can register for the talk through MSTE. [jameswelle]
+
Nicholas Carr will be speaking on Does IT Matter on Thursday, Nov 4 in 113/1021. [apardoe]
  
 
== IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing ==
 
== IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing ==
  
−
[Damon May] This topic has come up in the last two lectures, hence the main page post.
+
I moved this thread to the [http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php/Talk:Outsourcing_and_its_impact_on_innovation%3F "Outsourcing and its impact on innovation?" project idea discussion page] so that we can concentrate the discussion on the impact of outsourcing in one place.
  
−
A couple times so far in class, we've seen some very optimistic projections of IT job growth, particularly for "Software Analysts", over the next 10-20 years.  There are a number of inferences that can be made from the projection; it would be easy, for instance, to come away with a warm and fuzzy feeling that we're all in a field that will be booming for quite some time.
+
== Fair use: parody vs. satire ==
  
−
However, as we discussed in last night's (10/14) class, an increasing trend is to fill this talent vacuum with overseas resources.  I myself manage a team with one developer in the US and three in India.  This situation presents communication and other issues, but there's no denying the fact that companies are turning to outsourcing in great numbers. In the last three years, my department at my company has gone from roughly 5% of new development performed overseas to roughly 30%.
+
(This is about a reading for lecture 4, but there isn't a section for that yet ...)
  
−
Along these lines, USA Today has an interesting article along these designs. It's a rather alarmist piece, describing US IT workers as an [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/industry/2004-10-14-programming-jobs_x.htm endangered species] (here's the [http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/10/15/1521231.shtml?tid=156&tid=187 slashdot reference] that led me there).
+
The "fair use" section in Ch. 7 of ''Chasing Moore's Law'' mentions satire as an example of such. Did they mean parody? I first learned there was a distinction a couple weeks back when JibJab's ''This Land'' (''Sue You: This Song Is Our Song'' [http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64376,00.html]) was released. From what I understand, a parody uses the source material to comment on the source material. A satire uses the source material to comment on something else.
  
−
There are a number of policy issues related to outsourcing. As was discussed in last night's class, the US has a high standard of living and high wages relative to India, China, and other traditional outsourcing societies. What can the US do to make its workers productive enough to justify keeping the jobs here? 
+
I am a little confused on what is fair use, though. I think parody is always fair use. From what I heard around JibJab's case, satire is never fair use. Searching on FindLaw.com [http://www.findlaw.com], I got the impression that there was no meaningful distinction. Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] suggests that satire can be fair use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use], depending on circumstances, but has a tougher burden of proof because "the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody].
  
−
In a more protectionist vein, the article above mentions the idea of tightening the caps on H-1B visas or imposing additional restrictions on them. 
+
So when, if ever, is satire fair use?
  
−
How big a threat do people see to the US IT industry (and the larger US economy) from outsourcing? How much does it counterbalance the projected growth in IT jobs? Left unchecked, will the trend continue, stabilize, or reverse itself? What can government or industry do, economically and ethically, to slow or reverse the trend?
+
[[User:Jantos|Jim Jantos]]: It is my understanding that parody takes aim at the copyrighted work, while satire borrows from the copyrighted work but aims at some other target.  
  
−
I think this might make an interesting [http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php/Talk:Project_ideas project idea].
+
There is no presumption of fair use with respect to parody or satire. Based on the result of the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ("Oh Pretty Woman" Roy Orbison song parodied by 2 Live Crew - Supreme Court held: fair use), one may conclude that all transformative parody will likely be deemed fair use under section 107. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that parodies are not entitled to a fair use presumption and that each fair use factor under section 107 must be analyzed based on the context of the situation.
  
−
[Andrew Pardoe] That's a '''very''' alarmist article. Note that the only quotes were from the "Programmer's Guild" and the "National Hire American Citizens Society". It's pretty well accepted that the dot-com boom was wildly overstaffed--after all, money was free. 25% unemployment sounds low: a lot of the people who never should have been hired must have learned something while on the job.
+
Therefore, the fair use implications of parody and satire must be made on a case by case basis analyzing the four fair use factors of Section 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
  
−
There's a lot of paranoia about outsourcing which I haven't seen supported with relevant fact. Do you remember when Japan was going to take over the world? In 1983 a song called "Mr Roboto" was all over the disco floors. It was about a robot (Japanese made, of course) who was going to replace the American worker. Detroit was shaken by Datsun/Nissan, Honda, Toyota and Suzuki. Americans had invented TVs and VCRs but you couldn't even buy an American-made model. Even the Empire State Building was sold to a Japanese businessman in 1991. There weren't going to be any jobs left and in a decade or so all Americans were going to be doing low-paying service jobs (probably rolling sushi for export!) Worse yet, we weren't going to own any of our own nation. We'd beaten the Japanese is a bitter world war and they'd come back to beat us by buying us out with ''our'' money that ''we'' paid ''them'' for stuff ''we'' had invented!
+
Looking at the factors, parody requires the original copyrighted work to make its point by defininition, and therefore a parody has a basis to use the original work.  However, satire theoretically can stand on its own without the copyrighted work, which requires some justification for the act of using the copyrighted work in the first instance.
  
−
What happened? Why is Ford still in business? (Why is Chrysler a German company?) Why are they building Hondas in Marietta, Ohio? And who put all the Hummers in the supermall parking lots? It looks like the Japanese didn't take over the America after all.
+
== IT & Health care ==
  
−
I believe that the national fear of Japanese competition was very racially driven. We were afraid of computers and afraid of people with different-colored skin. At the time when the Empire State Building was sold to Hideki Yokoi the British owned 5% of American business (I don't have a reference and my memory of this fact is fading...) Why weren't we afraid of the British? In 1987 they bought out Standard Oil of Ohio (Rockefeller's company) and started sticking their foreign-owned petrol stations all over our American soil.
+
Here is an op-ed piece in the [http://www.washingtonpost.com Washington Post] by Senators Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton about [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30277-2004Aug24.html ''How to Heal Health Care'']. (They encourage the use of IT.)
  
−
I'll grant that the per-capita GDP of America is 13 times higher than that of India. But it's only 36% higher than the UK's and 37% higher than France's [ http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html]. But we aren't discussing European worker efficiency. In France they're working a 35-hour week. And yet they manage to sell (roughly) as many airplanes as Boeing.
+
Can others attend the Carr talk at MSFT?
−
 
 
−
It takes money a long time to make it from one place to another. The Rockefellers are still pretty rich, even without Standard Oil. The first world is wealthy and will stay that way for a long time. And when India becomes a rich nation we'll start selling more of our stuff to them.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:Wduhon|Walker]]
 
−
 
 
−
"What happened? Why is Ford still in business?"
 
−
 
 
−
Note that Ford was recently overtaken by Toyota as the #2 auto producer in the world.  Chrysler, as you said, is now a German company. 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
"Why are they building Hondas in Marietta, Ohio?"
 
−
 
 
−
For one there is a substantial duty placed on cars directly imported from Japan.  Also, foreign car companies are typically given very generous tax breaks and subsidies to set up shop in the United States.  This factory might be in Ohio, but foreign manufacturers are mostly clustered in the southern United States, where they can expect the most generous breaks from local governments, and very little union presence with the associated hassle and high wages.  Much of the component parts and materials, which face smaller to non-existent duties, still come from Japan.  Japanese car companies in general have been concentrating more on car parts and components, supplying many Korean and American auto manufacturers as well.       
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
"It looks like the Japanese didn't take over the America after all."
 
−
 
 
−
There's still time :-) For one Japan is purchasing U.S. assets at a higher rate now than it ever was in the 80's -- mostly in the form of U.S. government bonds.
 

Latest revision as of 20:25, 6 December 2004

590TU Discussion

Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU. This is for general comments and announcements for the class. If you have a comment on a specific topic or lecture, please visit the lecture-specific page. Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.

Talk on Does IT Matter for MS Employees

Nicholas Carr will be speaking on Does IT Matter on Thursday, Nov 4 in 113/1021. [apardoe]

IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing

I moved this thread to the "Outsourcing and its impact on innovation?" project idea discussion page so that we can concentrate the discussion on the impact of outsourcing in one place.

Fair use: parody vs. satire

(This is about a reading for lecture 4, but there isn't a section for that yet ...)

The "fair use" section in Ch. 7 of Chasing Moore's Law mentions satire as an example of such. Did they mean parody? I first learned there was a distinction a couple weeks back when JibJab's This Land (Sue You: This Song Is Our Song [1]) was released. From what I understand, a parody uses the source material to comment on the source material. A satire uses the source material to comment on something else.

I am a little confused on what is fair use, though. I think parody is always fair use. From what I heard around JibJab's case, satire is never fair use. Searching on FindLaw.com [2], I got the impression that there was no meaningful distinction. Wikipedia [3] suggests that satire can be fair use [4], depending on circumstances, but has a tougher burden of proof because "the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work" [5].

So when, if ever, is satire fair use?

Jim Jantos: It is my understanding that parody takes aim at the copyrighted work, while satire borrows from the copyrighted work but aims at some other target.

There is no presumption of fair use with respect to parody or satire. Based on the result of the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ("Oh Pretty Woman" Roy Orbison song parodied by 2 Live Crew - Supreme Court held: fair use), one may conclude that all transformative parody will likely be deemed fair use under section 107. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that parodies are not entitled to a fair use presumption and that each fair use factor under section 107 must be analyzed based on the context of the situation.

Therefore, the fair use implications of parody and satire must be made on a case by case basis analyzing the four fair use factors of Section 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Looking at the factors, parody requires the original copyrighted work to make its point by defininition, and therefore a parody has a basis to use the original work. However, satire theoretically can stand on its own without the copyrighted work, which requires some justification for the act of using the copyrighted work in the first instance.

IT & Health care

Here is an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Senators Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton about How to Heal Health Care. (They encourage the use of IT.)

Can others attend the Carr talk at MSFT?

Retrieved from "http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php?title=Talk:CSE590TU&oldid=4952"