There are obviously boundaries as to who should view what, but these boundaries are extremely unclear. Parameters are in place to try and prevent children from viewing such things, but these are easily bypass-able. For example, the security on YouTube allows for videos to be flagged by users if deemed inappropriate. If flagged, the video will then only be viewable by people 18 or older, and if it's continually flagged then the video will be taken down. But the obvious error in this is that anyone of any age can make an account saying they're 18 and then be able to view these videos.
At the same time, children have different levels of maturity. A child who grew up in the suburbs would have a different level of maturity and a different state of mind than someone who grew up in the ghetto. Children have different levels of maturity and different ideas of what's acceptable. This is usually instilled by parents as well. An old friend of mine grew up believing that the word for fart was "Phanny Burp." He believed this until he was 14 because his mother thought that fart was a bad word. Should he have been censored? is fart a bad word? was it fair to keep him from knowing "bad words" and resulting in him being mocked, teased, and bullied in school for using words and phrases like "phanny burp?"
Censorship is different for everyone, and usually controlled by parents. I know the first time I saw a pg13 movie, i was 11 and it was Pirates of the Caribbean. My friend who i was watching it with had already seen several pg13 and R movies, though she was the same age as me. She was also much more mature and could handle it while i had nightmares about the undead pirate haunting me for weeks to come. The age of consent all depends on the mentality of the child, their maturity because i know people my age now who are too fragile to see something like a sex scene or violence in Lord of the Rings, whereas other people my age are totally into that kind of thing and enjoy it. People would say about my fragile friend, "She's seventeen, she can handle it," but can she? if we were all 5 or 6 years younger, they'd be praising her for her goodness ad scolding my more "mature" friend for being exposed to this at such a young age. There is no specific age, it all depends on the maturity and mental state of the person. This usually is affected by parenting, schooling, the general environment in which a child is raised.
I guess the answer to this question depends on how you categorize children. I could respond to that question with a broad, general answer, but since I operate on the principal that everyone is an individual, and deserves to be treated as such, I will refrain from doing so. Some people obviously mature faster than others, and that maturity should grant them certain privileges. Although our society does not operate on an individual basis, I believe that for anyone under 18, consent to view certain types of media should be a decision regulated in the home, not by the government. If a parent and child can reach a consensus regarding what kind of media the child can watch, and that particular child is 12 years old and his parents let him watch Quentin Tarantino or what have you, then so be it. I am not a parent, and therefore do not possess the necessary perspective to comment on what others choose to allow their children to do or see. Obviously the internet presents a certain degree of anonymity, and allows underage individuals to be older in cyberspace in order to access certain content. I personally do not have the desire or time to dictate what people do with their lives, and if a 16 year old kid wants to watch porn on his laptop, then that is none of my business. I could get into the whole "media violence is ruining our society" debate, but I will stick to my general philosophy of letting people be as they are, unless they are directly endangering themselves or others.
The Movie Rip! Opened my eyes to many things I didn’t know, especially how strict copyright laws are at this time. It was actually quite scary, for according to the movie, I have broken numerous laws. Although I do agree that artists should get credit for the work they do, its quite frustrating that the money actually goes to greedy/rich music producers. I feel that people should be able to use other people’s music to remix in order to create art. As the movie said our culture comes from sharing and collaging ideas. The hardest part in the movie was when the narrator gave viewers a look into a family, which lost their house and all their savings because they downloaded a few songs, which I find absolutely RIDICULOUS! $100,000 for one song downloaded illegally is way too much. Personally, I am a huge fan of Girl Talk, and I find nothing wrong with his music. I feel like suing him would be taking things way to far. Everyone should enjoy music! Therefore it should be okay to share music because the artists don’t get most of the money anyways.
Jesse Marseille
Copyright blog
1.What would be the best way to balance artistic freedom and innovation with the need to make money? You can focus on one industry (e.g. music) If there are rules, how should the rules be enforced?
I think that in the music industry, only exact replications i.e. using the original source in its entirety and unaltered, and only in a business context, should be illegal. Thousands of songs have the same or very similar chords progressions; what makes them unique is how certain elements of the music are played. Taking an original track and changing certain characteristics is no different than using the same chords of a song but changing the lyrics, which is not illegal. Admittedly, I think that adding a single different note to a song should not mean someone other than the maker can go make money off it, but the standard for what constitutes a new song should be pretty liberal. Perhaps it must pass a jury of the people who determine if it is a different peace of work if there is a legal dispute. I don’t think the standard for musicians should be the same as in the computer of auto industry in that work is protected militantly. Art should still be seen primarily as art, not business. It is meant to be shared and explored and enjoyed, not sued over. I think the quality of art deteriorates as its justification becomes purely monetary and there is nothing wrong with us as a nation deciding on an aesthetic sense (seeing that art has value in itself).
As with several other laws in the history of the United States, as the obsolescence of copyright began to set in, so did its potential for abuse. Given the unregulated dog-eat-dog frontier we refer to capitalism and its highly-held position in American culture, this abuse almost immediately began to rise to its potential. Laws that were initially created to promote creativity began to dampen it. Now, if one posts a video containing any sort of copyrighted material on Youtube, no matter what the use, it is almost instantaneously taken down and in its place is left the message “Due to a copyright claim by [insert monopoly here], this video has been removed.” The absurd, persecuting, and creative-dampening nature that these old laws have taken on in the modern day should be a sign to any rational individual that Congress needs to overcome the immense influence of the RIAA and MPAA and implement some sort of new law which allows artists to breathe again.
I’m a vlogger. I’m a member of the YouTube community, and have been since it was created way back when (but not really way back when.) since then, I’ve seen so many issues come and go, surface as time passed and the site became more popular, but the one issue that continues to rear its ugly head is the issue of copyrighted materials.
In the beginning, copyright issues weren’t at large because YouTube was a small site – not worth anyone’s time or energy. But as YouTube grew, major companies starting throwing in their lawsuits saying what music, tv / movie clips, etc that users could and could not upload. The first time I remember seeing a copyright issue was when Smosh’s Pokemon Theme Song video was taken down because of a copyright claim. It was a small, feel-good funny video of two 18-year olds lip-syncing to the pokemon theme song and they were forced to take it down because the Poke-people said they had to and Smosh was almost sued. Since then, all users face issues with copyright claims. User-generated material on the site varies from vlogs (like myself do,) original music, covers and parodies of music, animation, sketchs, and news shows. Now, users have to be extremely careful as to what they upload for fear that not only might their video be deleted, but that they might face a LAWSUIT because of a VIDEO. IT’S REDICULOUS! I have very copy-left opinions, as do the majority of popular YouTubers. To quote one of my favorite videos, “Magic Mars Bars” by Charlie McDonnell…
“I used to steal mars bars. I put it down to peer pressure really, but when I was little… everyday after school we would go down to the local shop, shove mars bars down our sleeves and walk out like we thought we were cool. If I had to pick which one is the worse crime – stealing mars bars or illegal file sharing – I’d probably say that stealing mars bars was the worse crime. My rational for this is if you go into a shop, and steal a mars bar, then the shop owner has one less mars bar. But in the case of file sharing, where you’re making copies of the same song, it’s essentially the same as having magic mars bars. Exactly the same scenario, you go into a shop and take a mars bar, but in the spot where your mars bar once lay, a brand new one appears as if by magic. Now, from the shopowner’s perspective, the situation still definitely isn’t perfect, even with magic mars bars, because if you can get free mars bars, why the hell are you ever going to buy a mars bar. But that mars bar is like a free sample. If you genuinely like that mars bar, then the logical conclusion if you like that mars bar is that you’re going to have to start buying mars bars because the people who make mars bars need money to make those mars bars and if you don’t pay them money then they’re not going to make any more mars bars and you’re not going to get any more mars bars, not even free ones!”
… sorry, long quote. But it really does completely sum up my viewpoint perfectly. Illegal file sharing is only illegal because music artists are greedy. Personally, I don’t download things illegally but if you like an artist and want them to continue making music then you probably want to support them by buying their music. This is slightly different, but still on the same topic of using copyrighted music in a video. If you use someone’s song in a video, then that means you like it and you want to share it with the people who watch you – WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM? “It’s like free promotion, so you’re welcome” (Ryan Higa, Copyright.)
(sorry, this isn’t directly about girl talk and RIP, but it’s the same topic and the same issues so I thought I’d bring it up.)
Girl Talk has always been one of my favorite artists, but his music was the first glimpse into copywriting I experienced. Copywrite laws and their faults are not commonly taught to young adults growing up, and artists have to do their own research to verify that their work is totally legal. Putting limitations on artistic expression can be infuriating to some people. All the same, Hard working artists who put tons of energy into their work just to get it stolen and used by someone else have the same amount of justification to be frustrated. So where is the balance?
Personally focusing on the music industry, I believe that the right way to go about with copywrite laws is to permit sampling to an extent without needing the artist’s permission, but anything beyond a sample would need consent. Then, defining “sample” would be different for each form of art. Perhaps for music it would be a certain number of seconds that they are able to copy without violating the law. Other definitions for “sample” would need to be established for each form of art where copywriting is an issue.
I haven’t decided yet where I stand on the laws of copywriting. I think both sides have valid arguments but maybe take it to an extreme that I wouldn’t agree with. Taking a whole song from someone else isn’t exactly feeding the artistic fire as much as it is not wanting to come up with your original work. That being said, strict laws against building off of other people’s creative ideas and putting it into an original frame for your own ideas should not be prohibited so strictly. As the class advances hopefully a balance between the sides will become more clear.
