Kamis, 26 Februari 2009

BABENYAS KERAPU




Waktu hari kamis minggu lalu, my mom pulang dari pasar dan heboh manggil-manggil saya yang masih asik leyeh2 di kamar..




mommy : "ory..ory..ibu beli kepala kerapu gede banget udah kayak kepala sapi,,ayo masak yuk"




wedowwh,,,kepala ikan kayak kepala sapi,,,,awalnya gak percaya tapi ternyata setelah dilihat ternyata bener,,kepalanya doang beratnya hampir 3kilo,,,




akhirnya si kepala ikan terkena vonis di masak babenyas..babenyas adalah istilah masakan Lampung untuk rendang, cuma bedanya dengan rendnag padang, babenyas agak sedikit lebih berkuah dan selalu ditambahkan nanas yang membuat jadi lebih seger,,,


ini resep dan cara ngebuatnya.




BAHAN :




1,5kilo kepala ikan..[yg dimasak cuma i,5kilo soalnya kalo dimasaka semua takut gak kemakan, jadi disimpen buat besok2]


100gr kacang polong


100gr petai cina


1 buah nanas ukuran sedang [kira2 300-400gr]




BUMBU


Haluskan :


2 ruas jahe [3cm]


1 ruas kunyit [2cm]


8 siung bawang merah


4 siung bawang putih


10 buah cabe keriting


1 sdm garam [tidka usah menggunakan banyak garam, karena ikan laut sudha mengeluarkan rasa asing]


1 ruas lengkuas [2cm, pipihkan tidak perlu dihaluskan]




PELENGKAP:




1 batang sereh [potong menjadi tiga bagian lalu pipihkan]


5 helai daun jeruk


7 buah tomat hijau kecil


1 batang daun bawang




CARA MEMBUAT:




1. Tumis bumbu yang dihaluskan sampai harum dan matang


2. Masukkan bumbu pelengkap


3. Aduk pelan selama kira2 5 menit


4. Masukkan kepala ikan , susun rapih di wajan


5. Masukkan air perlahan-lahan dari pinggiran wajan [jangan dari tengah karena akan merusak ikan]


6. Tutup wajan dengan tuutp kaca, Masak hingga matang[ kira2 30 menit]


7. Masukkan kacang polong dan petai cina


8. Angkat kepala ikan dan sajikan




* Untuk 3porsi ..waktu saya ngebuat ini,,nanas tidak dimasak bersama ikan,,tapi dijadikan lalap. Kalo mau nanasnya dimasak, masukkan setelah kacang polong dan petai cina.




* Yang di taruh sengaja gambar sirip karena, satu2nya ikan laut yang kalau di masak gulai semua bagian nya bisa dimakan adalah ikan kerapu,,sampai insang2nya pun empuk dan bisa dimakan,,beda dengan kakap dna tongkol yang insangnya keras walau sudah dimasak.




selamat mencoba,,,jangan lupa,,makannya sambil duduk yang maniiiiiis..




sweetregard


oryza

Rabu, 18 Februari 2009

MANIS MANJA IKAN PEDA'

Introduction to 'ikan peda'
[entah tulisannya 'pedak' ato peda' tapi yang jelas bacanya seperti 'k' pada 'tidak']

ikan peda,,yang ada di warung2 sayur, biasanya di jual dalam bentuk ikan asin, kalo beli di pasar bisa didapat yang masih bentuk ikan segar, dengan harga 11-12ribu rupiah per kilo,kalo di warung sayur, satu kotak bambu [anyaman bambu yang berbentuk kotak] is 3-4 piece harganya sekitar 3-4ribu rupiah,,
Ikan peda' biasanya d pepes, makanan khas warung2 sunda kalo gak salah [soalnya sya juga belum pernah makan pepes pedak'], awalnya kurang mnat ama jenis ikan ini,, tapi entah kenapa obrolan ibu2 limo tentang tumis peda' jadi menumbuhkan rasa penasaran...

mpok 'ain: "anu rihh ditambah pete ama jagung, jadi tambah resep dahhh"

ini resep dan cara membuatnya [untuk mengahargai common interest limo families for ikan peda']

bahan:
1 box ikan peda [3-4 piece,, potong kotak2]
1 bongkol jagung manis [diseset..lol..bahasa apa ini, yang jelas di....ya diseset..???]
50 gr petai [belah dua]

bumbu:
5 siung bawang merah [cincang halus]
2 siung bawang putih [cincan halus]
1 buah tomat ukuran sedang [potong dadu]
4 buah cabe merah keriting [iris serong]
1 sdm gula pasir [tambah atau kurangi sesuai selera]

* tidak perlu menambahkan garam karena rasa asin sudah ada dari ikan peda'

cara membuat:

1. Tumis bumbu hingga harum
2. Masukkan ikan, aduk2 sebenar tambahkan sedikit air
3. Masukkan jagung tunggu beberapa saat, jangan lupa tutup wajan agar matang dan tidak merubah warna jagung
4. Masukkan petai lalu aduk2 perlahan, diamkan 2 menit, angkat.
5. Angkat dan sajikan selagi hangat


sensasi yang didapat,,adalah,,gurih dari ikan peda'..manis dan segar dari jagung,,dan 'seru' dari petai,,hehehe

selamat mencoba..
kalo ada pertanyaan,,hubungi ory di 02195660746

jangan lupa,,makan sambil duduk yang maniiiiiis,,,,^__^










Senin, 09 Februari 2009

a heart of a fragile girl


My

i trust you
just like fireflies trust the night
i worship you
just like bee worship the flowers

it always come and give them light
a bright day and honey showered

then along came you and me
with all smile and the bless from the almighty

the shadow of mine covered your will
but its not strong enough to covered the ill

i start to like what i’ve always avoided
then it comes more and make me addicted
just like virtual flower you gave me
only in my dream but make me happy

u told me to be optimist
but you are the one who just vanish
its only you i allow to kiss
my daily live and my baked sweeties…….

my cheek reddish the atmosphere
calling lovers from everywhere
i look for you in that crowd
i scream your name so out loud

everytime a guy turning his back
its not your face im lookin at
not also the future face
you promised me to shared

oh beloved…….

it was rain on the pillow i lay
you may not home again….and go far away.


http://galadarling.com/images/08-06/alone.jpg

CURBAN

CUCUR BANANA

Buat kalian yang suka kue tradisional dari betawi [kalo gak salah] berbentuk seperti gunung meletus alias kue Cucur, tapi bosen ama rasanya yang cuma didominasi gula merah..kalian bisa coba mencampurkan pisang ambon ke dalamnya,,,rasanya lebih legit dan aromanya lebih harum, harum pisang ambon,,yang ngebuat makannya lebih semangat,,ini resepnya

sebenarnya gak jauh berbeda dari resep cucur biasa cuma airnya diganti dengan jus pisang ambon..

bahan:
400gr tepung beras
200gr tepung terigu
400gr gula merah parut
1/2 sdt garam
3 buah pisang ambon ukuran sedang
500ml air
300ml minyak kelapa [untuk menggoreng]


cara membuat:
* haluskan pisang ambon [dijus] dengan air yg sudah disediakan
* campur semua tepung dan masukkan garam
* tuang 1/2 bagian jus perlahan-lahan ke dalam tepung sambil terus diuleni pakai tangan
* masukkan gula merah parut lalu aduk pakai tangan [ketika sudah mulai rata, gunakan sendok ukuran besar untuk menghancurkan gumpalan2 gula yang belum halus]
* masukkan sisa jus dengan perlahan-lahan ke dalam adonan sambil diaduk rata

* tuang adonan cucur dengan komposisi 50gr [1 sendok nasi] dalam minyak yang tidak terlalu panas [goreng satu2]

* ketika cucur mulai menggelumbung, tusuk puncaknya dnegan lidi lalu goyang2kan dan balik.
goreng hingga kecoklatan.

nikmati selagi panas..
hasil 60 piece

selamat mencoba, kalo ada yang kurang jelas
hub Ory di 02195660746

jangan lupa...makan sambil duduk yang manis ya,,,:')
[sorry gk sempet upload gambar, lupa difoto udah abis duluan,,hehe]





a heart of a fragile girl

that afternoon

i sit down and wait
with a bucket of love on my lap
keep trusting all you said
letting my heart for you to wrap

the afternoon wind accompany me
fly the leaves and fly my heart to thee
as my eyes give a blank view
my soul’s waiting for a rescue

suddenly the wind blow stop
by all mean that i cant bear
my eyes tear drop to drop
but you’ll never know, cause never hear

Senin, 08 September 2008

Sehari Tanpa TV? Mengapa?


Dear, Om dan Tante TV

Om dan tante..mana kreativitasmu? Ayo dong buat acara TV yang sesuai dengan umur kami”.

Itulah sepenggal kalimat yang diambil dari salah satu banner YPMA (Yayasan Pengembangan Media Anak) untuk mendukung hari tanpa TV. Yayasan tersebut adalah pionir untuk hari tanpa TV yang pertama kali dicetuskan pada tahun 2006 lalu. Pertanyaan yang timbul adalah, ada apa dengan TV? Mengapa timbul himbauan untuk mematikannya walau hanya sehari?.

Mungkin tidak terbersit dalam benak seorang ilmuwan Jerman, Karl Ferdinand Braun pada tahun 1897, ketika pertama kali ia menciptakan Tabung Sinar Katoda yang menjadi dasar televisi layar tabung, bahwa benda itu menjadi sebegitu kuatnya mempengaruhi masyarakat. Mungkin juga tidak terpikir olehnya bahwa benda itu akan sangat efektif membentuk perkembangan jiwa seorang anak kecil menjadi remaja hingga ia dewasa. Mempengaruhi pikiran seseorang yang akhirnya menetukan arah tindakan.

Berbagai teori dalam ILmu Komunikasi mengkaji peran dan dampak TV, satu yang paling terkenal adalah Cultivation Theory oleh George Gerbner (1978).

Masih ingatkah anda pada kasus beberapa waktu yang lalu, tentang seorang anak laki-laki yang meng-smack down temannya hingga tewas? Secara garis besar, itulah bukti dari teori Gerbner. Bahwa TV menerpa penontonnya dengan tayangan-tayangan yang ketika semakin tinggi frekuensi penonton melihatnya maka akan terbentuk pikiran dan perilaku yang mengadaptasi tayangan-tayangan itu. Gerbner adalah seorang dekan di Anneberg School for Communication di University of Pennsylvania. Ia mengklaim bahwa dunia yang ditampilkan di TV adalah dunia yang terbentuk dalam pikiran seseorang. Kekerasan yang masyarakat lihat di TV akan membiakkan pemikiran dunia yang menakutkan dan tidak aman, bahwa tidak ada lagi orang asing yang dapat dipercaya dan tidak ada lagi lingkungan yang aman.

Maka tidak heran jika tayangan Smack Down yang ditayangkan di TV –bahkan di jam tayang yang anak-anak bisa menontonnya—dengan sukses membentuk pikiran anak laki-laki mengenai diri mereka yang harus sesuai dengan apa yang ditayangkan di TV. Bahwa laki-laki yang kuat adalah laki-laki yang bisa mengalahkan lawannya atau laki-laki yang kuat adalah ketika tidak ada yang bisa secara fisik mengalahkannya. Yang akhirnya diimplementasikan oleh si anak ke teman-temannya lalu jatuhlah korban. Bukan hanya smack Down, tayangan-tayangan seperti naruto, One Piece yang bahakan juga disusupi seks, semuanya menyuguhkan kekerasan, darah pertikaian diakhiri oleh pembunuhan. Sedih memang jika melihat apa yang diberikan oleh TV Indonesia kepada pemirsanya terutama pemirsa anak-anak. Mayoritas hanyalah kebiasaan buruk dan jatuhnya korban.

Selain itu rangkaian kartun dari pagi hingga malam disajikan untuk menggoyahkan keinginan anak untuk belajar. Data yang diperoleh dari YPMA pada tahun ini menujukkan bahwa dari keseluruhan tayangan untuk anak hanya 30% yang benar-benar aman untuk ditonton, sisanya berada dalam kategori ‘hati-hati’ dan ‘berbahaya’. Pantas memang jika TV harus dimatikan walau hanya satu hari, karena TV secara umum tidak memberikan dampak yang bagus. Jadi, untuk Om dan Tante, dengarkanlah keluhan dari pemirsa setiamu, jangan khianati kepercayaan mereka dengan menyuguhkan tayangan-tayangan yang justru tidak baik untuk mereka bahkan justru menumpulkan kemampuan berpikir.

Ibu, Lupa atau Terlena

Kenyataan social yang ada sekarang sesuai dengan yang ‘diramalkan’ oleh Maxwell McCombs dan Donald Shaw dalam teori Agenda Setting. McCombs dan Shaw mengatakan “menganggap penting apa yang media anggap penting” (1972). Dan itulah yang melanda masyarakat Indonesia sekarang ini. Pikiran masyarakat ditentukan oleh media, seakan-akan ketika TV mulai dinyalakan, loper Koran mulai menyebarkan Koran, penyiar radio mulai memutarkan lagu-lagu—mayoritas barat—dan bercas-cis-cus menyapa pendengar, media mengatakan “Inilah yang harus anda pedulikan hari ini”. Semua isu, apa-apa yang penting tentang pendidikan, kesejahteraan, ekonomi, politik, budaya, social dan yang menduduki peringkat teratas adalah pergaulan, semuanya diatur oleh media, apa yang tidak ditampilkan oleh media adalah hal yang tidak penting bahkan bukan suatu hal yang harus dipikirkan. Maka jangan heran jika semua hal di Indonesia ini ada ‘masa’ nya atau sebutlah ‘yang sedang in’. Sampai sedekah atau bantuan bencana alam-pun ada masanya, walau kenyataannya bencana alam itu belum juga selesai bahkan bertambah parah, hanya karena sudah tidak in lagi dan tidak akan diliput oleh TV, maka tidak ada lagi yang bersedekah atau peduli.

Sebenarnya tidak ada yang mengkhawatirkan dari apa yang dikatakan oleh McCombs dan Shaw dalam teorinya, namun yang menjadi masalah adalah ketika media—dalam hal ini Televisi sebagai pemberi dampak yang paling kuat—menyajikan hal-hal yang tidak layak atau tidak sepantasnya disajikan. Bisa dilihat dari materi tayangan televisi swasta Indonesia, dimana rating telah mejadi dewa. Tanpa peduli pada kualitas dan tujuan , hanya peduli pada aspek pengembalian dari apa yang ditayangkan-baca: profit. Contohnya adalah infotainment, kemampuan ibu-ibu rumah tangga –yang katanya sangat ‘gape’-- dalam menggunjingkan orang semakin diasah dengan sajian-sajian infotainment yang berurutan dari pagi hingga malam di berbagai stasiun Tv swasta, bisa dibayangkan jadwal ibu-ibu rumah tangga Indonesia, bangun pagi jam 5.00 lalu menyapu halaman ,lalu pergi ke pasar atau warung sayuran terdekat untuk berbelanja bahan-bahan makanan , menyiapkan sarapan untuk suami dan anak-anak. Sekitar pukul 07.00 ketika suami sudah berangkat ke kantor dan anak-anak berangkat ke sekolah, sambil ditemani Informasi Selebritis pagi(insert) mulailah si ibu mengolah bahan makanan yang sudah di beli tadi. Sambil mengupas bawang atau memotong tomat dan menyiangi bayam, si ibu dengan seksama menyimak berita-berita seputar selebritis mulai dari kisah cinta, perceraian, karir yang menurun atau selebriti muda yang sedang naik daun. Terkadang sambil mendengarkan pembawa acara memaparkan cerita , si ibu mengumpat-umpat sendirian mendengar cerita tentang suami artis anu yang berselingkuh dengan istri si artis anu, bahkan terkadang bahasa yang digunakan pembawa acara cenderung mengarahkan penonton—bukan hanya ibu-ibu—untuk memiliki prasangka negative terhadap suatu kasus, misalnya “Benarkah cinta Bambang pada Mayangsari memang cinta yang timbul dari hati? Apakah Mayang tidak meminta pertolongan siapapun untuk mendapatkan cinta Bambang?”. Sehingga si ibu semakin seksama menyimak dan ber ‘ooh…ooh…’ dalam hati, seakan setuju dengan si pembawa acara, hingga tanpa disadari oleh si ibu bahwa ia telah didikte habis-habisan oleh media. Apa yang dipikirkan dan bagaimana memikirkannya. Dan ketika matahari telah 90% dari kemiringan bumi, tibalah waktunya melipat pakaian yang telah kering untuk disetrika sore harinya, sambil ditemani insert siang. Si Ibu dengan tidak sabar ingin tahu bagaimana kelanjutan berita mengenai perselingkuhan suami artis anu dengan istri si artis anu. Jika si Ibu mengharapkan laporan mendalam dari kasus perselingkuhan tersebut si ibu tidak perlu khawatir karena semuanya akan di kupas tuntas dalam insert investigasi.

Tidak lagi penting bagi si ibu untuk memeriksa apa yang dipelajari oleh anaknya di sekolah. Apa yang dilalui si anak di sekolah, apakah dia mememui masalah atau tidak, apakah si anak mempunyai pekerjaan rumah yang harus diselesaikan atau tidak. Yang mayoritas dipikirkan si ibu adalah betapa teganya suami si artis anu selingkuh dengan istri si artis anu. Mengapa ini bisa terjadi? Memang tidak bisa disangkal bahwa sifat dasar manusia adalah rasa ingin tahu, Karena itu adalah konsekuensi dari keberadaan akal yang diberikan oleh Sang Pencipta sebagai bukti bahwa manusia adalah makhluk yang paling sempurna. Namun dibalik itu, dan karena konsekuensi akal itu pula lantas manusia mempunyai kemampuan untuk memilih, mana yang baik dan mana yang tidak baik. Namun kasus yang ada di Indonesia bisa diasumsikan bahwa masyarakat tidak punya pilihan, apalagi para ibu rumah tangga yang diasupi oleh media secara terus-menerus dengan info-info yang tidak berperan penting dalam kehidupan mereka. sehingga lama kelamaan menggeser apa yang penting bagi mereka bahkan menggeser identitas diri mereka atau bahkan membenarkan stereotype –entah siapa yang menciptakan—bahwa ibu-ibu adalah pelaku utama pergunjingan.

Jika sang ibu sibuk dengan infotainment, dan si anak tidak beranjak dari kartun dengan kategori berbahaya. Bisakah anda bayangkan masa depan bangsa ini akan seperti apa? Ya iyalah masa iya dong, Mulan aja jamilah masa jamidong…? Adalah Madesu*

Oryza Sativa

Mahasiswi Ilmu Komunikasi FISIP UI

IMIKI Media Watch

*Masa Depan Suram

Selasa, 20 Mei 2008

C o n t r o l l i n g t h e W i r e d

( a n d H e n c e t h e C o n t e n t L a y e r )

In the last chapter, I argued that there is a tension between control at the physical layer and freedom at the code layer, and that this tension affects the incentives for innovation. The original freedom built a commons; more control can undermine that commons; the tragedy is our forgetting the value of the free in our race to perfect control. The “wired” who are affected by the changes I am describing here are not exactly the same “wired” who built the open source and free software movements that I spoke about in chapter 4.
But in a critical sense, they are the same. Both innovate by building on the content that has gone before. Both therefore reveal how much creativity depends upon the creativity that has gone before. Both show, that is, innovation as adding something to the work of others. the Net emerged into the popular press, there was an anxiety among many about what the Net would make possible. People could do things there that we had discouraged or made illegal here. Pornography was the most dramatic example of this anxiety. The freedom of the Net meant, the world quickly learned, the freedom of anyone— regardless of age—to read the obscene. The news was filled with instances of kids getting access to material deemed “harmful to minors.” The demand of many was that Congress do something to respond.
In 1996, Congress did respond, by passing the Communications Decency Act (CDA).1 Its aim was to protect children from “indecent content”
in cyberspace. The act was stupidly drafted, practically impaling itself upon the First Amendment, but its aim was nothing new. Laws have long been used to protect children from material deemed “harmful to minors.” Congress was attempting to extend that protection here.
Congress failed. It failed because the CDA was overbroad, regulating speech that could not be regulated constitutionally. And it failed because it had not properly considered the burden this regulation would impose upon activity in cyberspace. The statute required adult IDs before adult content could be made available. But to require sites to keep and run ID machines was to burden Internet speech too severely. Congress would have to guarantee that the burden it was imposing on the Internet generally was no greater than necessary to advance its legitimate state interest—protecting children.
In 1998, Congress tried again. This time it focused on clearly regulable speech—speech that was “harmful to minors.” And it was much more forgiving about the technology that would permissibly block kids from “harmful to minors” speech. Still, federal courts struck down the law on the ground that the burden it would impose on the Internet generally was just too great.2
These cases evince a distinctive attitude. Though the state’s interest in protecting children is compelling, courts have insisted that this compelling state interest be pursued with care. In effect, a demonstration that the regulation won’t harm the Net too broadly is required before this state interest can be promoted. Facts, and patient review, are the rule in this area of the law of cyberspace.
The state was free to advance its compelling state interest; but it was required, in so doing, not to kill the rest of the Net. the same time that parents were panicking about porn on the Net, copyright holders were panicking about copyright on the Net. Just as parents worried that there was no way to keep control over their kids, copyright holders worried that there was no way to keep control over copyrighted content. The same features of the Internet that made it hard to keep kids from porn also made it hard to keep copyrights under control.
Both forms of panicking were premature. While it is true that the Net as it was originally built made it hard to control content (by either keeping it from kids or keeping it from being copied by kids), the Net as it was originally built is not the Net as it must be. Code made the Net as it was; that code could change. And the real issue for policy makers should be whether we can expect code to be developed that would solve this problem of control.

In Code I argued that in the context of copyright, we should certainly expect such code to be developed.3 And if it were developed as its architects described, then the real danger, I argued, is not that copyrighted material would be uncontrolled: the real danger is that copyrighted material would be too perfectly controlled. That the technologies that were possible and
that were being deployed would give content owners more control over copyrighted material than the law of copyright ever intended.
This is precisely what we have seen in the past two years, but with a twist that I never expected. Content providers have been eager to deploy code to protect content; that much I and others expected. But now, not only Congress but also the courts have been doubly eager to back up their protections with law.
This part I didn’t predict. And indeed, in light of Reno v. ACLU, one would be justified in not predicting it. If parents must go slowly before demanding that the law protect their kids, why would we expect Hollywood to get expedited service? The answer to that question is best left until after we have surveyed the field. So consider the work of the courts, legislatures, and code writers in their crusade to expand the protections for a kind of “property” called IP.

I N CREASING CONTROL

Copyright Bots

The content in these dorm rooms is being used without direct compensation to the original creator. No doubt, no permission was granted for the taping of the LPs. Posters displayed to the public are not displayed with the permission of the poster producers. Books may have been purchased, but there was no contract forbidding passing them to other friends. Photocopying goes on without anyone knowing what gets copied. The lyrics from songs copied down from a recording are not copied with the permission of the original author.Cartooncharacters, the exclusive right of their authors, are not copied and posted, on walls or on computer desktops, with the permission of anyone. All these uses occur without the express permission of the copyright holder. They are unlicensed and uncompensated ways in which copyrighted works get used. Not all of these uses are impermissible uses. Many are protected by exceptions built into the Copyright Act. When you buy a book, you are free to loan it to someone else. You are free to copy a small section of the book and give it to a friend. Under the Audio Home Recording Act, you are free to copy music from one medium to another. Taped recordings of records are therefore quite legal.
But some of these uses of copyrighted works may well be illegal. To post the poster may be a public display of the poster not authorized by the purchase.4 To use icons on your computer of Simpsons cartoons is said by Fox to violate its rights. And if too much of an assigned text has simply been copied by the student, then that copying may well exceed the scope of “fair use.”
The reality of dorm rooms, however—and, for that matter, most private space in real space—is that these violations, if they are violations, don’t matter much. Whether or not the law technically gives a student the right to have a Simpsons cartoon on his desktop, there is no practical way for Fox Broadcasting Company to enforce its rights against overeager fans. The friction of real space sets the law of real space. And that friction means that for most of these “violations,” there is no meaningful violation at all.
Now imagine all this activity moved to cyberspace. Rather than a dorm room, imagine that a student builds a home page. Rather than taped LPs, imagine he produces MP3 translations of the original records. The Simpsons cartoon is no longer just on his desktop; imagine it is also on his Web server. And likewise with the poster: the rock star, we can imagine, is now scanned into an image file and introduces this student’s Web page.
How have things changed?
Well, in one sense, one might say the change is quite dramatic. Now, rather than simply posting this content to a few friends who might pass through the dorm room, this student is making this content available to millions around the world. After all, pages on the World Wide Web are available anywhere in the world. Millions use the World Wide Web. Millions can now, for free, download the content that this student posted.
But there’s a gap in this logic. There are millions who use the World Wide Web. But there are billions of Web pages. The chances that anyone will stumble across this student’s page are quite slight. Search engines balance this point, though that depends upon what’s on a particular page. Most Web pages are not even seen by the author’s mother. The World Wide Web has amazing potential for publishing; but a potential is not a million-hit site. Thus, in reality, this page is effectively the same as the student’s dorm room. Probably more people view the poster on the dorm room window than will wade through the student’s Web page. In terms of exposure, then, moving to cyberspace doesn’t change much.

CPHack

There ’s lots of junk on the World Wide Web. And there’s lots that’s worse than junk. Some of the stuff, for some people, is offensive or worse. The worse includes material deemed obscene or, and this is a very different category, “harmful to minors”—aka pornography. As I’ve described, there’s a long and tedious history of Congress’s efforts to regulate porn in cyberspace.11 I’m not interested in that story here. I’m interested here in the efforts of companies to regulate porn in cyberspace by producing code that filters content. The code I mean is referred to affectionately as “censorware.” Censorware is a class of technology intended to block access to Internet content by forbidding a Web browser to link to the blocked sites. Censorware companies make it their job to skim the Web looking for content that is objectionable, and they then add the link to that content to their list. Their list of banned books is then sold to parents who want to protect their kids. There is obviously nothing wrong with parents exercising judgment over what their kids get to see. And obviously, if the choice is no Internet or a filtered Internet, it is better that kids have access to the Internet. But this does not mean that censorware is untroubling. For often the sites blocked by censorware systems are themselves completely unobjectionable. Worse, sites often are blocked merely because they oppose the technology of censorware. In December 2000, free speech activists at the civil rights group Peacefire reported that a number of censorware systems had begun to block Web sites affiliated with Amnesty International.12 This is just the latest in an endless series of similar cases. They all point to a technology that is fundamentally at odds with the openness and free access of the original Net.


DeCSS

The lawyers for Mattel relied directly upon copyright law. But there was another tack they might have taken—one that will prove much more important as time goes on. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).18 That act strengthened copyright in a number of ways, but one way was particularly troubling. This was its “anticircumvention” provision.
The anticircumvention provision regulates code that cracks code that is intended to protect copyrighted material. There are two parts to the provision—one that restricts the cracking of code that protects copyrighted material, and one that forbids the creation of code that cracks code that protects copyrighted material. In both cases, the aim of the law is to lend legal support to the tools that copyright holders deploy to protect their copyrighted material.In the ordinary case—with ordinary property—there can be little in this to complain about. It is a crime to steal my car. But obviously, that isn’t enough to stop car theft. So many people install a burglar alarm in their car to further inhibit car theft. But obviously again, that too isn’t enough. So if a legislature, wanting to reduce the risk of theft even more, passes a law that makes it a crime to disable burglar alarms, or to sell tools whose sole purpose is to disable burglar alarms, there can’t be any complaint about these rules, either. If it is wrong to steal a car, and permissible for people to protect their property, it is wrong to crack technology designed to protect the property.
But this story about real property doesn’t map directly onto intellectual property. For as I have described, intellectual property is a balanced form of property protection. I don’t have the right to fair use of your car; I do have the right to fair use of your book. Your right to your car is perpetual; your right to a copyright is for a limited term. The law protecting my copyright protects it in a more limited way than the law protecting my car. This limitation is not just laziness on the part of Congress. The limits on the law’s power to protect copyright are inherent in the clause granting Congress power to regulate copyright, and in the First Amendment’s restrictions on Congress’s power. Copyright law, for example, cannot protect ideas; it can protect only expression. The law’s protection can extend only for limited times. And fair use of copyrighted works is understood to be constitutionally required.

These limitations distinguish copyright as property from ordinary property. And that distinction suggests the trouble with direct analogy from laws protecting burglar alarms to laws protecting code protecting copyrighted work. If copyright law must protect fair use—meaning the law cannot protect copyrighted material without leaving space for fair use—then laws protecting code protecting copyrighted material should also leave room for fair use. You can’t do indirectly (protect fair-use-denying-code protecting copyright) what you can’t do directly (protect copyright without protecting fair use).

i CraveTV

iCraveTV was a site that streamed television content over the Internet.23 The site was located in Canada, where Canadian broadcasting law made such streaming legal. Under Canadian law, anyone has the right to rebroadcast television content, as long as he doesn’t change the content in any way. iCraveTV wanted to take advantage of that right to give computer users access to TV.
Soon after iCraveTV went on-line, copyright holders in the United States brought suit to shut it down. The theory? By setting up an Internet service to broadcast TV, iCraveTV was broadcasting TV into the United States. It was therefore violating U.S. copyright law (by “publicly performing” what iCraveTV streamed to American viewers). Until it could “guarantee,” as the Hollywood lawyers put it, that no United States citizen would get access to this free Canadian TV, the Canadian site had to be shut down. There was a significant dispute about how hard iCraveTV was working to keep non-Canadians out of its site. The Hollywood lawyers hired Harvard Law School Berkman Center’s boy genius Ben Edelman to demonstrate just how easy it was to hack the iCraveTV site. But whether easy or not, the significant issue about the case is this: How much should someone in one country have to be burdened by the laws of another country? For example: Imagine the Chinese government telling the American site China Online24 that it must shut down until it is able to block out all Chinese citizens, since the content on China Online is illegal in China. Or imagine a German court telling Amazon.com that it must stop its selling of Mein Kampf until it can guarantee that no German citizen will be able to get access to that book—since that book is illegal in Germany. Or imagine a French court telling Yahoo! that it has to block French citizens from purchasing Nazi paraphernalia, since that is illegal in France. (Oops, no need to imagine. A French court did just this.25)
In all these cases, we are likely to think that the action of these foreign governments is somehow illicit. That the free exchange of the Net tilts us in favor of open and regular access. That steps to shut down foreign sites because of local laws are the very essence of what the Internet was designed to avoid.
But when it comes to copyright law, we become like the Chinese, or Germans, or French. With respect to law, we too want to insist upon local control—especially because local law here is so strong. So with respect to copyright law, we push local control. And the result is the birth of technologies that will facilitate better local control.
iCraveTV, for example, promised the court that it would develop technology to make it possible to block out everyone except Canadians. Jack Goldsmith and Alan Sykes have described the growing collection of technologies that will achieve the same end.26 These suggest that the future will
be very much like the past: life on the future Internet will be regulated locally, just as life before the Internet was regulated locally.

MP 3
Ten days after launching the service, MP3.com received a letter from RIAA attorneys.28 Its service was a “blatant” violation of copyright laws, said the letter, and MP3.com should take the service down immediately. MP3.com refused, and the lawyers did what lawyers do when someone refuses: they filed suit in U.S. district court, asking for over $100 million in damages.
The RIAA lawyers had a point, if you looked at the statute quite literally. MP3.com may have purchased a bunch of CDs, but it had clearly “copied” these CDs when it created its single, massive database. There was, on its face, then, an unauthorized copy of each of these CDs, and the question became whether or not this copy was nonetheless fair use. Applying the ordinary standard for fair use, the RIAA argued that it was clearly not. This was for a commercial purpose. Thus, fair use was not a defense, and the blatant and willful copying was then a prosecutable offense. When lawyers have such a clean, slam-dunk case, they get very, very sure of themselves. And the papers in the My.MP3 case are filled with outrage and certainty.

But when you stand back from the outrage and ask, “What’s really going on here?,” this case looks a lot different. First, as should be clear, My.MP3 was not facilitating the theft of any music. You had to insert a real CD into your computer before you could get access to the copy on MP3.com’s server. Of course, you could borrow someone else’s CD and hence trick the system into thinking you were the rightful owner of the CD. But you could borrow someone else’s CD and copy it anyway. The existing system permits theft; My.MP3 didn’t add to that.
Second, it should be fairly clear that this service would increase the value of any given CD. Using this technology, a consumer could listen to his or her CD in many different places. Once the system recognized your rights to the music on the CD, the system gave you those rights whenever you were at a browser. That means that the same piece of plastic is now more valuable. That increase in value should only increase the number of CDs that are purchased. And that increase would benefit the sellers of CDs.
Third, it is also fairly clear that exactly the sort of thing that MP3.com was doing could easily have been done by the consumers themselves. Any number of companies have created free disk space on the Internet. Anyone could “rip” his or her CDs and then post them to this site. This ripped content could then be downloaded from any computer. And this download could be “streamed” to be just like the service MP3.com was providing.
The difference is simply that users don’t have to upload their CDs. On a slow connection, that could take hours; on a fast connection, it still can be quite tedious. And a second difference is that the duplication that would be necessary for everyone to have his or her CDs on-line would be much less. Ironically, by shutting down MP3.com, the RIAA was inducing the production of many more copies of the very same music.

Napster

Against the background of MP3.com, Napster does look a bit dicey. After all, the service at issue in MP3.com was a service to give individuals access to content that they presumptively had purchased. On Napster, the presumption is the opposite. There seems little reason for me to download music I already own. But even that is not quite correct. I’ve been a Napster user, though I am not an imaginative user, and I am generally quite lazy. I know exactly what I want to hear, and I know that because I own the music already. But it is easier simply to download and play the music I own on Napster than it is for me to go through the CDs I own (most of which are at home, anyway) and insert the one I want in a player. Thus, while I won’t say that none of the music I have listened to on Napster is music I don’t own, probably only 5 percent is.

Eldred

This latest change outraged many, and especially Eric Eldred. Eldred threatened civil disobedience—promising to publish a series of Robert Frost poems that would have fallen into the public domain. After some of us convinced him that that was a very dangerous strategy, Eldred chose instead to challenge the statute in court. In January 1999, in a federal court in Washington, D.C., Eldred filed his complaint.
Eldred’s claims were simple. If the Constitution permits Congress to grant authors an exclusive right “for limited times,” then the Framers of that power clearly intended that that exclusive right must come to an end. Permitting Congress the power to perpetually extend copyrights would defeat the purpose of the express limitation.
This was Eldred’s claim based on the language of the copyright clause of the Constitution. He also raised an argument based on the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that Congress “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Copyright is a law that certainly limits Eric Eldred’s HTML press. So how are these two provisions of the Constitution—one granting Congress the power to issue copyrights, and the other limiting Congress’s power to “abridge” the freedom of the press—to be reconciled?

COMMONS ON THE WIRES

The internet is a network of networks. In the main, these networks connect over wires. All of these wires, and the machines linked by them, are controlled by someone. The vast majority are owned by private parties— owned, that is, by individuals and corporations that have chosen to link to the Net. Some are owned by the government.
Yet this vast network of privately owned technology has built one of the most important innovation commons that we have ever known. Built on a platform that is controlled, the protocols of the Internet have erected a free space of innovation. These private networks have created an open resource that any can draw upon and that many have. Understanding how, and in what sense, is the aim of this chapter.
The internet is not the telephone network. It is a network of networks that sometimes run on the telephone lines. These networks and the wires that link them are privately owned, like the wires of the old AT&T. Yet at the core of this network is a different principle from the principle that guided AT&T. Like the principle Baran confronted, this principle affects what is allowed and what is not. And like the principle that Baran confronted, this principle has an effect on innovation.
First described by network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Clark, and David P. Reed in 1981, this principle—called the “end-to-end argument” (e2e)—guides network designers in developing protocols and applications for the network. End-to-end says to keep intelligence in a network at the
ends, or in the applications, leaving the network itself to be relatively simple.
There are many principles in the Internet’s design. This one is key. But it will take some explaining to show why.
Network designers commonly distinguish computers at the “end” or “edge” of a network from computers within that network. The computers at the end of a network are the machines you use to access the network. (The machine you use to dial into the Internet, or your cell phone connecting to a wireless Web, is a computer at the edge of the network.) The computers “within” the network are the machines that establish the links to other computers—and thereby form the network itself. (The machines run by your Internet service provider, for example, could be computers within the network.)
The end-to-end argument says that rather than locating intelligence within the network, intelligence should be placed at the ends: computers within the network should perform only very simple functions that are needed by lots of different applications, while functions that are needed by only some applications should be performed at the edge. Thus, complexity and intelligence in the network are pushed away from the network itself. Simple networks, smart apphicadions.
That was my purpose in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. There I argued that it was the architecture of cyberspace that constituted its freedom, and that, as this architecture was changed, that freedom was erased. Code, in other words, is a law of cyberspace and, as the title suggests, in my
view, its most significant law.
But in this book, my focus is different. The question I want to press here is the relationship between architecture and innovation—both commercial innovation and cultural innovation. My claim is that here, too, code matters. That to understand the source of the flourishing of innovation on the. Internet, one must understand something about its original design. And then, even more important, to understand as well that changes to this original architecture are likely to affect the reach of innovation here. which code matters? Which parts of the architecture?
The Internet is not a novel or a symphony. No one authored a beginning, middle, and end. At any particular point in its history, it certainly has a structure, or architecture, that is implemented through a set of protocols and conventions. But this architecture was never fully planned; no one designed it from the bottom up. It is more like the architecture of an old European city, with a central section that is clear and well worn, but with additions that are many and sometimes confused.




This design has important consequences for innovation—indeed, we can count three:
• First, because applications run on computers at the edge of the network, innovators with new applications need only connect their computers to the network to let their applications run. No change to the computers within the network is required. If you are a developer, for example, who wants to use the Internet to make telephone calls, you need only develop that application and get users to adopt it for the Internet to be capable of making “telephone” calls. You can write the application and send it to the person on the other end of the network. Both of you install it and start talking. That’s it.
• Second, because the design is not optimized for any particular existing
application, the network is open to innovation not originally imagined. All the Internet protocol (IP) does is figure a way to package and route data; it doesn’t route or process certain kinds of data better than others. That creates a problem for some applications (as we’ll see below), but it creates an opportunity for a wide range of other applications too. It means that the network is open to adopting applications not originally foreseen by the designers.
• Third, because the design effects a neutral platform—neutral in the
sense that the network owner can’t discriminate against some packets while favoring others—the network can’t discriminate against a new innovator’s design. If a new application threatens a dominant application, there’s nothing the network can do about that. The network will remain neutral regardless of the application.
The significance of each of these consequences to innovation generally will become apparent as we work through the particulars that follow. For now, all that’s important is that you see this design as a choice.
The physical platform on which the Internet took off came prewired. It was the telephone wires that linked homes to homes. But the legal right to use the telephone wires to link to the Internet did not come preordained. That right had to be earned, and it was regulation that earned it. Nothing guaranteed that modems would be permitted on telephone lines. Even today, countries in Asia regulate the use of modems on telephone lines.62 What was needed before the revolution could begin was permission to connect the Net to this net.
For certain applications, “best efforts” is not enough. Internet telephony, for example, doesn’t do well when packets carrying voice get delayed. Any delay greater than 250 milliseconds essentially makes the system unusable.67 And as content on the Net moves to real-time, bandwidth demanding technology, this inability to guarantee quality of service becomes increasingly costly.
Put differently, a pricing system for allocating bandwidth solves certain problems, but if it is implemented contrary to end-to-end, it may well do more harm than good.
That is not to argue that it will do more harm than good. We don’t know enough yet to know that. But it raises a fundamental issue that the scarcity mentality is likely to overlook: The best response to scarcity may not be a system of control. The best response may simply be to remove the scarcity. This is the promise that conservative commentator George Gilder reports. The future, Gilder argues, is a world with “infinite” bandwidth. Our picture of the Net now—of slow connections and fast machines—will soon flip. As copper is replaced with glass (as in fiber optics) and, more important, as electronic switches are replaced by optical switches, the speed of the network will approach the speed of light. The constraints that we know from the wires we now use will end, Gilder argues. And the end of scarcity, he argues, will transform all that we do.
There is skepticism about Gilder’s claims about technology. So, too, about his economics. The economist in all of us can’t quite believe that any resource would fail to be constrained; the realist in all of us refuses to believe in Eden. But I’m willing to believe in the potential of essentially infinite bandwidth. And I am happy to imagine the scarcity-centric economist proven wrong.

Selasa, 08 April 2008

Through The Fog : The Future of Intellectual Property


Lesson One: We’re Locked In A War No One Can Win

Bagaimanapun juga public adalah kostumer para pembajak (dan dalam kasus tertentu public bahkan pembajak itu sendiri). Bias dikatakan bahwa setelah 2000 tahun, masyarakat tidak terlalu mengkahawatirkan legalitas dan moralitas dari mennyalin buku atau materi tertulis lainnya, membeli buku bajakan dnegan harga murah, mengkopi lembaran music, meminjam frase nada dari orang lain, membuat rekaman dari rekamna ornag lain dan yang paling popular pada saat ini adlaah mengunduh music dan lagu-lagu dari internet. Walaupun begitu badan pemeri ntahan –pada awalnya adalah gereja lalu Negara—telah berusaha untuk melindungi hakcipta dengan hokum. Berhasilkah itu? Berapa banyak yang bocor melalui retakan itu? Siapa yang tahu? Yang kiat tahu sekarang ahanyalah bahwa bahkan hukum sendiri walaupun terkadang dipaksakan, tidak terlalu memberi dampak yang berarti.

Kebanyakan orang sangat menikmati mengambil sesuatu tanpa tujuan, dan keseringan hanya mendapat nilai rasa palsu ketika berhunbungan dengan media digital. Itu selalu menjadi penjualan yang sangat sulit bahwa sebuah program piranti lunak berharga ratusan dolar. Apakah dalam bentuk makanan, lagu, orang biasanya sangat suka membagi apa yang mereka sukai. Dan apakah orang akan berhenti mengunduh? Menyalin? Atau berbagi file?sepertinya tidak.

Ketika berbicara tentang pengunduhan. Maka kita membicarakan tentang bengkel operasi yang menjalankan banyak hal yang dijalankan oleh criminal-kriminal dan gangster-gangster handal. Ingatlah bahwa sepertiga dari dunia merupakan daerah-daerah dengan budaya-budaya—orient, Islam, suku Afrika, Negara komunis terdahulu-- yang tidak mempunyai tradisi yang menganggap hasil intellectual sebagai milik pribadi. Dan untuk mengefektifkan hukum intelektual mungkin akan diperlukan kebijakan moral dan karisma seorag pemimpin seperti sebut saja Mahatma Gandhi, dan ini sangat sulit untuk diwujudkan.

Lesson Two: Copyright Laws Wont Go Away

Sikap pemilik hakcipta memiliki kecenderungan sebagai berikut:

Tahap Pertama : Menyuarakan peringatan, biarkan orang lain tahu bahwa masalah ini sednag mengancam (a) kehidupan para penulis Inggirs (b)Kreasi literature Amerika (c) Inovasi teknologi Amerika (d) kehidupan artis, penulis, pengembang software, dll.

Tahap kedua : Perlihatkan kepada parlemen, kongres. Gunakna lobi orang dalam yang melindngi status quo.

Tahap ketiga : Penghasutan.

Tahap keempat : Posisikan daya saing. Pergunakan siapa dan apa saja yang dapat mendukung posisi anda untuk menyakinkan public dan pembuat hukum akan kemurnian hak anda.

Tahap berilut adlaha tahap yang paling memungkinkan bagi masyarakat adalah, tahap kelima : kompromisasikan perubahan dalam hukum hak cipta. Beri tahu senator atau dewan perwakilan anda.

Penelitian ynag dilakukan oleh Fisher mengenai hakcipta merumuskan hal-hal berikut sebagai perlindungan bagi sebuah karya:

· Perusahaan media menggunakan hukum kontrak dalam bentuk persetujuan kebebasan dan “term of service” sebagai modal untuk mengatur jakcipta, dalam usaha untuk mencegah peminjaman, penjualan ulang dan pengiriman media digital.

· Pembatasan jumlah yang bias dikopi.

· Kenvergensi digital dari perspektif teknologi merupakan keuntungan biasa yang didapat masyarakat.

Lesson three : Piracy Has Changed The Relationship Between Media Buyers And Sellers

Penerbit harus selalu memperbaharui niat jahat mereka untuk memperkecil wujud pembajakan. Dalam waktu yang bersamaan organisasi pembajakan emnjadi semakan legal. Napster bukan lagi pembajak namun partner dalam perniagaan digital. Bahkan sekarang produser piranti lunak bajakan juga melakukan legitimasi distribusi dengan persetujuan tertentu dengan penerbit. Dengan kata lain, seiring berjalannya waktu penerbit akan berbaur dan bekerjasama denga pelaku pembajakan. Bias juga dikatakan bahwa mereka harus belajar cara menyenangka pelanggan.

Selasa, 25 Maret 2008

Membuat file gambar dengan macromedia fireworks






  1. Buka fireworks
  2. Buat sahpe rectangle dan warnai dengan gradien fill.
  3. buat shape rectangle pada layer baru, ubah bentuk shapenya, beri warna serta efek bevel boss dan berikan efek outer glow. Copykan dan variasikan masing –masing properties tersebut ,
4. buat text dan ubah warna.
5. simpan dalam format png.

membuat file shockwave flash

Tutorial macromedia flash sederhana [slide show foto] :

1. 1.Buka macromedia flash

2. 2.Klik pada layer 1

3. 3.Import image

4. 4.Convert image sebagai movie clip, tentukan efek warna menjadi alpha.

5. 5.Maksimalkan warna alpha, klik pada frame ke 20, nol kan alpha

6. 6.Create motion tween.

7. 7.Buat variasi dengan foto lain denagn cara yang sama

8. 8.Export file dengan format SWF



KLklikDISINI untuk melihat file