| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Introducing Dokkio, a new service from the creators of PBworks. Find and manage the files you've stored in Dropbox, Google Drive, Gmail, Slack, and more. Try it for free today.

View
 

Drafts - Issues and What's Next

Page history last edited by Colin 10 years, 2 months ago

Feature on ClothingFeature on ClothingFeature on ClothingFeature on ClothingFeature on ClothingFeature on Clothing"This is a link to a page where all team members can work on rough drafts of their features, scripts etc. Each feature can have a sep. subpage off of this Drafts - Episode Title page.

 

Our theme for the print article is going to be open source sharing...why it is becoming a trend, how it will impact business, law and society.

Cory will be our main character for the podcast.  We have permission to read excerpts from his book to introduce our different sections.

 

Cory "Sharing culture- another word for it is the enlightenment."

 

Intro Notes

 

The free sharing of information behind Maker Culture is letting us share, form communities, and try new things.

 

 

 

Corporate Notes

 

 

 

Open source technology will make it easier for people to start their own businesses. - Clive Thompson

Eg.   Ashley Reid started a yarn store.  Clip of her from book launch talking about online community for knitters.

Online communities like Etsy facilitate selling things you made yourself. - Adam Brown from Etsy.

Maker culture originated from geek culture because they wanted to make things better ("open it up and tinker with it")- Clive

The future is about customization- Clive

Free culture- Chris Anderson, freemium, quote from Cory (around 4 min mark)

" Open source catalyses the free market and open source speeds up capitalism." Clive

The sharing culture is growing- enclosure movement (commons)- Cory- lead to law section on ownserhip (sharing has a direct benefit to owning)

 

Corporate Draft

 

 

 

 What Clive Thompson imagines for the future of business would give MBAs a heart attack.

Give things away for free.  This is the concept of open source.

“Open source will make it easier for people to make lots and lots of money,” said Thompson, a New York-based writer for Wired and the New York Times magazine.

 In the past, businesses had to spend a lot of money on licensing software.  Now they can use free open source programs like Linux.  The cost of starting a company has decreased so more people are doing it, Thompson said.  “Open source catalyses the free market and speeds up capitalism.”

People making things and sharing ideas is the heart of maker culture so if you want to run a successful business, make some friends. 

In the maker world, social capital can be more valuable than investment capital.

Cory Doctorow believes this.  He is a maker who wrote a book called Makers.

“Sharing has a direct benefit to people who are making,” said Doctorow.  “Other people will help you make stuff better.”  His book explores what the future might look like if maker culture goes mainstream.

The maker culture movement is changing the way traditional businesses operate.

The book publishing industry is being revolutionized by print-on-demand from sites like Lulu.com.

Forget capital and bulk production orders.  All you need to publish a book is an idea and a computer, said Thompson. 

Technology is also enabling people to access a global marketplace.  Online communities like Etsy connect people from around the world to buy, sell and share things made by hand.  “We are a platform for people to start and grow their own businesses,” said Adam Brown, a spokesperson from Etsy.

Etsy reports it has 3.2 million users worldwide and has grossed over US $133 million by Oct 2009, which shows the large demand for handcrafted products.   This is a long way from their modest earnings of US $166,000 four years ago.

Etsy’s popularity exploded with the growing interest in maker culture.  People are beginning to appreciate quality handmade goods.  “I think it’s a reaction against big box culture that was prevalent in the 80s and 90s,” said Brown.  People want to express their identity and style with unique, customized goods, he said. 

“Our goal is always to make the best, most vibrant, innovative marketplace …and make it a fun place for people to shop and look at art and design,” said Brown.

The future isn’t going to be more entrepreneurial, said Doctorow.  “I think the right word is creative.”

 

Clips for the podcast:

What the next generation thinks:

Tessa and Kritika- love of science commons and creative commons leads to a future that is collaborative

Maker culture is a return to authenticity, localized manufaturing is now feasible.- Andrew Schwab

 

 

 

Psychology Section Article Outline

 

 

-          The first subject for this article will be Alexander, and his motivation for creating a hack lab that reaches out to a wide variety of demographics.

-          The question of why Alexander chooses to be a maker, and what kind of satisfaction he gets out of it.

-          Dr. Laura Freberg and her own personal take on how people who choose to pursue a maker lifestyle are embracing core instincts that date back thousands of years.

-          Her belief that the movement is capable of trending and that society is in need of those with unique thoughts who are willing to push the boundaries so that culture does not become boxed in.

-          Alexander’s thoughts on why the spreading of maker culture produces individuals with greater mental and spiritual freedom.

-          His belief that all are capable of having the ability to create if they are shown the fruits of maker culture.

-           Finally futurist PJ Wade’s own comments on whether the general population would take advantage of maker devices like 3D printers.

-          Her belief that the printer’s success would rest on communities adopting the machines and sharing them, rather than just using them on an individual level.

-          Her warning: that the motivations of all who use the technology will not be the same as the makers of today. Precautions would be taken for those who would use the technology for more sinister purposes like stealing/copying rather than creating.

-          Conclude with the fact that as the tools behind maker culture spread, the ideology and purpose should be reproduced as well.

 

C

Psychology  Draft

 

 

 

When looking at Maker Culture from an outsider’s perspective the first question asked is likley why? Why would someone want to do this?

 

 “The answer is I want it to exist in the world, that’s it,” says Alexander Honkala

 

At his day job Honkala works in biotechnology research but he’s also the head of All Hands Active. Currently the lab is working on building a robot that gives hugs and random advice, as well as a suit that plays electronic drum beats. And like others involved with the Maker Culture, they’re not going to make any money doing it.

 

But this lab is also about spreading the inspiration that drives people like Honkala to do what they do. He wants to get past the stereotype of the techno geek to bring Maker Culture to the masses.

 

 This includes people who may not be tech enthusiasts including artists, musicians and yes, even women. Honkala believes the inspiration to create could be spread in the future if the public sees what drives makers.

 

 “To me it’s a natural extension of a creative impulse and I’m happiest when I’m making something” says Honkala.

 

 But the need to create may go even deeper. Dr. Laura Freberg, a professor at California Polytechnic, sees the culture as a way for people to get back to their roots. She believes the fulfillment a person gets out of doing something for themselves can be traced back to theory of evolutionary psychology.  

 

 Freberg explains that people once had to produce for themselves and the urge still exists today. Whether it’s building a computer or something as simple as fishing, the extra effort carries a sense of fulfillment that could reside in many others.  

 

 “You’re tapping into a sort of primeval source of satisfaction people have…and I do think some of those ideas are very contagious”.

 

But the concept of open source labour sounds pretty strange in today’s society. Since people have been raised within the cult of consumption, getting people to realize the reward that comes from open source creation can be a challenge.

 

 Honkala admits there’s skepticism towards the movement when people learn there’s no attention paid to a bottom line, but thinks the naysayers could get pumped if they could experience the results.

 

He feels if people took control again they would want to know more about how the world around them works. If people had to make like their ancestors, they also might know more about themselves.

 

 Making a drum suit might still be complicated, but Honkala says the benefit to making rather than consuming is simple:

 “If people are so far removed from their curiosity, from their imagination…it’s like they’ve lost everything that made childhood special.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The future isn’t going to be full of entrepreneurs it is going to be full of creativity, said Doctorow.

 

 

 

Legal Draft

 

UPDATED

 

Need to explain who Devin is first, so readers don't say: Devin who? Pipes, aluminum, what? What's a 3D printer? Too many questions for naive reader in the first sentence. YOU know this stuff, readers don't. Read LIKE them, then write FOR them. -w 

--> Hey Wayne, tried to clarify from your last comment. Let me know if this still doesn't work. Thanks! :) Julianne

 

Devin McPherson transformed some old pipes and aluminum parts into a high-tech 3D printer. Instead of printing paper, this machine churns out real objects, from clothing hooks to mechanical parts.

 

McPherson is a member of the Michigan RepRap team.  RepRap is a 3D printer design that anybody can download. And this is exactly what McPherson did. It then cost him about $400 to assemble the raw parts and put his ReRap printer together.

 

The transformation didn’t happen the instant he clicked “download,” but this design was the essential ingredient that helped him turn raw parts into a high functioning machine.

Downloading the design instead of buying a $20,000 3D printer at the store makes you wonder if there could be any legal repercussions.  

 

The good news for McPherson is a judge can’t rule against anything he’s doing. RepRap is open source, which means that anybody can download the design free of charge.

 

“You have all the power with open source,” says McPherson. “I can make a 3D printer…and then use my printer to make parts for other printers.”

 

Margaret Ann Wilkinson agrees that McPherson isn’t doing anything wrong when it comes to the law.  She’s the Director of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology Law at the University of Western Ontario.

 

Although open source isn’t a legislated movement, it doesn’t violate any laws, Wilkinson says.  “It’s basically philanthropy by international copyright owners, giving up certain rights, in order to allow the public to do whatever they want with the material.”

 

Before releasing his latest book, Makers, Cory Doctorow also made his work available online.  He shared his content under the Creative Commons license, which allows artists, musicians and educators to share their work. 

 

But there are certain conditions that can be attached to this – like users may have to attribute your work and use it only for noncommercial purposes. Doctorow gets to choose which of these conditions will apply to his material.

 

Doctorow doesn’t think open source and Creative Commons prevents all legal barriers within maker culture. “In many forms of media, the more expansive copyright is, the harder it is to make new media, because you often take pieces of old media.”

 

He says music sampling, an art form that uses sound recordings from different songs to make a new song, is an example of this.

 

If a sampling artist isn’t represented by a major record label, it’s nearly impossible to get the licensing they need to make their music, Doctorow says. And if they can get the licensing, it’s often unrealistic to pay the millions of dollars required for the rights.

 

If the music falls under the Creative Commons license, a sampling artist would be able to use this music, perhaps with some restrictions.

 

But, major record labels own the copyright for the majority of musical works. Creative Commons may open the doors for some sampling artists, but the reality is that many artists can’t make their music because of copyright barriers.

It’s like a “toll booth between your idea and the world,” says Doctorow.

 

Wilkinson doesn’t see the law changing anytime soon to eliminate that tollbooth.

 

“When a government tries to get in front of a social change like maker culture and legislate advanced solutions, it just doesn’t work and because of that it won’t happen,” Wilkinson says. “We’ll just have to wait and see what comes next.”

 

 

 

 

 

With the click of a button, Devin McPherson transformed a mess of pipes and aluminum parts into a 3D printer.

 

He was able to download the design of the 3D printer online. 

Awkward lead, it's not just with a click of a button, as you explain below, so you sort of back your way out of an misleading statement. - w 

 

The transformation didn’t happen the instant he clicked “download,” but this design was the essential ingredient that helped him turn raw parts into a high tech contraption.

 

McPherson is a member of the Michigan RepRap team.  RepRap is a 3D printer and anybody can download its design.

 

But doing this instead of buying a $20,000 3D printer at the store makes you wonder if there could be any repercussions.

Awkward, you just said that the reader bought a $20,000 printer and wondered about repercussions. That's not what you meant. - w 

 

  How would a judge with a big gavel in hand rule on this? Lose the gavel. - w

 

The good news is McPherson doesn’t have to lie awake at night, afraid that the legal system will come after him. RepRap is open source, which means that anybody can download the design free of charge, and a judge can’t rule against it. 

This guilt construct is too forced, cut to the chase - w  

 

“You have all the power with open source,” says McPherson. “I can make a 3D printer for only $400 and then use my printer to make parts for other printers.”

 

Margaret Ann Wilkinson agrees that McPherson isn’t doing anything wrong when it comes to the law.  She’s the Director of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology Law at the University of Western Ontario.

 

Although open source isn’t a legislated movement, it doesn’t violate any laws, Wilkinson says.  “It’s basically philanthropy by international copyright owners, giving up certain rights, in order to allow the public to do whatever they want with the material.”

 

Before releasing his latest book, Makers, Cory Doctorow also took his legal rights into his own hands. He made his book available online for everybody to read.

Making it available online didn't take the legal rights into his own hands, making it available via Creative Commons did, as did the agreement of his publisher. For example, Fiest couldn't just toss up her album and say "go nuts" she would have to create a legal and label agreement framework to make that happen. - w 

 

But he doesn’t think online sharing prevents all legal barriers within maker culture. “In many forms of media, the more expansive copyright is, the harder it is to make new media, because you often take pieces of old media.”

 

He says music sampling, an art form that uses sound recordings from different songs to make a new song, is an example of this.

 

If a sampling artist isn’t represented by a major record label, it’s nearly impossible to get the licensing they need to make their music, Doctorow says. And if they can get the licensing, it’s often unrealistic to pay the millions of dollars required for the rights.

 

But if a music selection falls under the Canadian creative commons license, a sampling artist would be able to use this music, on the condition that they attribute the original artist.

It's Creative Commons, not Creative commons. Also, there are dialects or flavors of CC licences some are more restrictive than others. It's not one size fits all. - w 

 

Although this license allows creators to share their work under certain conditions, major record labels own the copyright for the majority of musical works. Creative commons may open the doors for some sampling artists, but the reality is that many artists can’t make their music because of copyright barriers.

 

It’s like a “toll booth between your idea and the world,” says Doctorow.

 

But Wilkinson doesn’t see the law changing anytime soon to eliminate that tollbooth.

“When a government tries to get in front of a social change like maker culture and legislate advanced solutions, it’s just doesn’t work and because of that it won’t happen,” Wilkinson says. “We’ll just have to wait and see what comes next.”

 

Social Draft

 

Don't assume someone's read that article, explain it in one sentence here. -w

Whoa that is one round-about sentence. -w too many concepts looping each other like swallows. - w

Leave yourself and the "I" voice out of the piece. - w

Move his title up to this sentence. I read it and say, "Who?" don't wait until mention of the 3D organ printer. - w

 

Bad news, you need a kidney transplant from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. Worse still, the waiting list is over five years. The solution might be available soon, but the costs might be a little high to do-it-yourself.

In the Fabricators article we met the 3D organ printer, a nifty little gadget that may soon let us print out fully functional organs.

Dr. Vladimir Mironov, a propelling force behind the 3D organ printer, and an Assistant Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, says that reality isn't so far off.

He said the simple things, like blood and skin are already on the market. They took 10 years to develop, and $200 mil to get cleared by the FDA, he said. This is a paltry sum compared to printing a complex organ like a kidney, he said.

“It’ll probably be a nightmare to get FDA permission if you are really talking about creating human organs. FDA approval will cost close to $1 billion, and one kidney will cost $250,000 at least,” he said.

Printing organs is a realistic, but lofty goal. It’s one Mironov doesn’t think will happen without a lot of help. Financial help.

“My feeling is that in an academic environment it’s just not realistic. You must have a very well funded start-up company which can raise enough money to bring this to market,” said Mironov.

Mironov points out strong benefits to this sort of tech – replacing a kidney could replace years of costly dialysis treatment, or worse. Quality of life for people would improve. But, which people?

“With regular organ transplants, you don’t pay for them, but access is always a huge issue,” said Lawrence Burns, a specialist in bioethics with the department of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario.

“I think the only really genuine moral issue that springs around access is - people on waiting lists who can afford it would then go purchase these (printed organs), and that creates a kind of two-tier system,” said Burns.

Sure, we could skirt the legalities. But is the production of human organs really something we want to be unregulated?

The development of this technology would probably need heavy industry or government backing, said Mironov.

But, if that is ever going to happen, backers will need to convince a squeamish government. The debate around stem cell research and cloning is pretty fierce, and it’s easy to see how 3D organ printers could tread the same path.

Burns doesn’t think the public will be so hard to convince. “You get so many prosthetic parts, people are happy to have metal and plastics and things in their bodies,” he said.

“If you make a heart and they don’t see process, but if you can point to the box and say, 'There’s a heart in there that can work, and all we have to do is put it in your body,' I think people wouldn’t necessarily see that as different from having a donor,” said Burns.

 

 

First drafts of intro and conclusion

 

INTRO:

 

During this series we’ve seen a lineup of creative makers ready to construct a whole new world. This series has shown what Maker Culture is doing to thrive in society today but the future is a whole other battle. Read on to find out the challenges of a world that makes.

CONC:

 

Before maker culture can take on the world it will have to break down barriers and capture and the hearts of people, literally in some cases. It’s not going to be easy. But then again, nothing worth making ever is.

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.