Text & Context: Egypt and Social Media

A nice overview from the Times of India about the protests in the Arab world:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Tunisia-to-Egypt-an-Arab-upheaval/articleshow/7382198.cms

My views on the movie RIP!

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.

Copoy Right?

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).

Copy Right or Copy Left

I think that Copyright laws were made for artists and individuals to have their ideas as their own and get credit for the work they do. However, the laws are broad thatit has become unclear what copyright is exactly.
If there were no copyright laws, artists would create their work but perhaps not get all the credit they deserve for it. Which is not the best thing, however, it is not necessarily a bad thing either. People would be able to access whatever information they wanted, build off of someone else's work, and it would be sharing, not stealing. In Rip! Girl Talk explains how research in the medical field is patented and how these patents prevent other people from doing the research and possibly finding a cure for cancer or other diseases. So having no copyright can be find and even beneficial.

Copyright: A Silly Game to Play

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.

Copyright Claims in my homeland/Homepage, YOUTUBE

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.)

Copy Questioning

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.

copyright? copyleft? copy nuetral? copy-what the heck does this all mean anyway?

Personally, I like to hear both sides of a story before I formulate an opinion, so I am going to use my allotted 125 words to break down my understanding of copy right and copy left.

copyRIGHT

Intellectual property. That is the name of the game within the copy right, and their job is to place restrictions on the general public who feel entitled to mix up media. After all, somebody worked hard to produce that song/video/photograph, and ultimately deserves credit where credit is due. America IS a country based on capitalism, and if big business is losing its grip on its product, we could very well spiral into a post apocolyptic society where 12 year old kids can remix music without being personally persecuted by some of the largest companies in the world. And obviously nobody wants that. But, seriously- sarcasm aside, the copy right does present some valid points. Artists (theoretically) work hard to produce their music, and as musicians, what they make is directly tied to their livelyhoods. So before we go out and make a mash up of Jay Z and Michael Jackson, we should take a moment to ask ourselves, am I taking away something from somebody else without their permission? Would my remix offend/disturb/depress the original artist? I don't know about Jay Z, but I have a feeling that Mr. Jackson wouldn't be bothered quite as much. ( too soon?)

copyLEFT.

The artists that produce the music that people make mash ups of are filthy rich. They could buy me, my parents and my dog 10 times over and have enough money left to build us a nice desert island on which to spend the rest of our days. When you are a millionaire ( or billionaire, for that matter) a couple hundred thousand dollars here and there doesn't seem that important. This is the 21st century, people. We need to move away from a culture dominated by big business and corporations. After all, look where that got us the last time. As we move into an era dominated by the internet, the iphone, and every other kind of wireless streaming device out there, media gets harder and harder to control. People have more freedom to express themselves, to help shape the way that our culture moves. Positive change only occurs when society collaborates, and remixes allow the public to do just that. Intellectual property is all about greed. Somebody got rich off of somebody else, decided that he ( or she) really liked his brand new maserati, and spent the rest of his days plotting ways to keep other people from profiting off of his "intellectual property." But mash up artists aren't really profiting are they? Girl Talk, the biggest mash up artist in the business, gives his songs away for free. And free songs never hurt anybody.

So where do I stand?

I know that I originally said that I wanted to lay out both sides of the story, but I am admittedly a little biased. I consider myself very liberal, and I am sure my posts indicate to you where I stand. However, while I don't agree with/ like the ideas of the copy right, I can understand their point of view. If there is ever going to be harmony between these two sides of the mash up wars, both are going to have to step into the others shoes. I know what I think, but that doesn't necessarily make my opinion right. Do research, find out for yourself, make your own decision, and shout your beliefs to the world. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about?

CopyRIGHT

The movie, "Rip! A Remix Manifesto," brought up many problems related to copyright laws that I had never really noticed before. I thought that using the example of artist Girl Talk was very beneficial to the objective of the movie-makers, for the audience could really understand the arguments of those opposed to copyright laws. Something that I took away from the film was the realization of how much of the media is protected by these laws and why that makes people upset. In some ways, it bothered me to hear about how much information is legally unavailable to the public, even if the information is being used for educational purposes. However, I am not opposed to most copyright laws. I believe that these laws were created for a certain reason, and that reason is to ensure that those who have written, composed, or produced something new will be able to get success that they deserve. I say this because although it may seem unfair that music producers who are already extremely wealthy profit even more under these laws, one has to realize that this is a capitalist society. Using the example of wealthy music producers, like it or not, they will keep becoming more wealthy under these laws as long as the public continues to invest in music. I believe that anybody works hard to achieve something that is successful deserves to be rewarded, whether that reward be money or protection from anybody less creative and innovative than him/her attempting to steal their work.

Copyright or Copyleft (or somewhere in between)?

Write (125 word minimum) on the issues addressed in RIP!. You may use one of these questions as a guide:

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?

2. When, if ever, is it ok to use other people’s work without permission? When, if ever, is it not ok?

3.What might the world look like if copy left culture became dominant? What would happen to the artist? What might happen to the spread of ideas and innovation? List both positives and negatives (3 each)