Posts Tagged: copyright


Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

Oct 07 2010

Week 6 Response

Published by

I’m going to start my response this week with a discussion of “The Social Network,” the Facebook movie that was released last weekend. In my framing questions, I asked how copyright will change how future generations will consume and use media. The movie calls into question issues of fair use and intellectual property. Supposedly, Mark Zucherberg was approached by twin brothers, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, to create a dating site for Harvard. Mark took this idea and created Facebook, giving no credit to the guys who originally had the idea.

The question isn’t whether Mark Zucherberg’s actions were unethical, but whether the Winklevoss’ had a claim to Facebook. NO. They did not. You cannot copyright an idea! They brought it to Zucherberg and he put his own twist on it and coded and created the most influential social networking tool of a generation. In relating “The Social Network” to Lessig’s Remix, I am reminded of our discussion about respect for laws. Although Zucherberg didn’t break the law, our culture has promoted a system that encourages the sharing and taking of ideas to create content and technology.

I also asked about how we can revamp the copyright system in a way that is beneficial to both the creators and the users. The answer is that I don’t know if we can. As a student, I am all for fair use and information existing in the public domain. As an artist, I am more adept to believe that we should protect the creators of content. It’s a double edged sword. I don’t necessarily think we should decriminalize file sharing and copyright as Lessig suggests. We should just improve the system by making what is protected and what isn’t a little looser. The best comparison I can give is that to the “war on drugs.” Yes, heroin and crack cocaine should be illegal. But marijuana probably shouldn’t be illegal. Likewise, taking part of a book and reselling it as your own work should be illegal. Pulling a photo from a website and using it on your blog should not.

Case in point: the photo I used in this post. Is it copyrighted? Probably. Is Facebook going to come after me and smite me? I hope not! Do a quick search of “The Social Network movie” on Google and this image appears dozens of times. The frequency of appearance and popularity should  mean that this photo is in the public domain. Maybe I’m just not completely clear on all of the copyright laws and maybe I didn’t violate any rules by using the photo in this post– but even if I did, we need to consider that I’m using it for educational purposes to illustrate a point. That makes it fair use, right? This is what Lessig is arguing for– we need a more clear cut system to make sure that users and creators are protected. Until that time, our culture is kind of in limbo– as a student I don’t know what I can use and as a creator I don’t know what is protected. The need for revision is there; now it’s up to lawmakers and creators to take the next step and improve the system.

Oct 06 2010

Response Post for Sociocultural Contexts of Interactive Media

Published by

As media and technologies have advanced over the centuries, society has changed with it.  Has law kept up with all the changes and adapted adequately?

This was the final question I posed in my framing post earlier this week in regards to the sociocultural contest of interactive media.  After reading and discussing in class, I think it is apparent that society has outgrown the law and it needs to be rethought.  Digital mediums have brought copyright, sharing, and the idea of professional versus amateur to a whole new level.  Just as some societies may be afraid to adopt the new technologies in our world today, I believe our world is afraid to adapt new laws to accommodate these new technologies.  It’s time for a change and we can no longer fit our new world into our old regulation model.

The younger generation makes this issue apparent through their disregard for pirating consequences.  Although everyone knows that downloading copyrighted material is illegal and there is big talk that those who take part in these activities will be punished, we don’t hear of a lot of follow through action.  It’s common knowledge that a lot of younger people’s digital content was not paid for and that sharing this content with others is expected among friends.

So where are the repercussions.  If we don’t enforce the rules in this realm, how will other laws concerning wrongdoing be viewed?  Will vandalism and shoplifting also been seen as a something that can be brushed away or not taken seriously?  How will this shape the younger generation and what implications will this behavior and attitude toward law have on society in the future when they run the world?  Frankly, I am a little nervous to see how today’s kids will turn out.

I am also concerned about the trend toward free content online.  Unfortunately, since the Internet’s beginnings back in the late 1960s it was always deemed as and intended to be  a free medium.  However, I don’t believe people know how quickly the Internet would explode onto the societal scene and be integrated so deeply into our modern lives.  Although everyone today is accustomed to the idea of free content online, I think this needs to change.  Just because we are used to something doesn’t mean it is the best method.

As mentioned early, it seems that the world is afraid to change laws to adapt to the new digital lives we live.  Everyone demands free, free, free, free.  But in reality this isn’t possible or fair.  Internet users want a socialist society online but shutter at the idea in real life.  For some people, the Internet is their main world and their main source of income and societal development.  We can not treat the online world as if it is not connected to real lives.

Oct 04 2010

[framing] ree-eh-eh-ree-eh-eh REEEMIX

Published by

Our age of political protesters do so silently and nonviolently and daily…from their computers.

This is what our radicals have become!

As Lessig suggested, youth today work within a different framework than the print media of our parents’ youth, and laws should be adjusted to flex and mold with the technology. Out of a fear that no creative work could be protected came a legal system that casts out a net wide enough to actually impede innovative creation. It’s time for the law to grow up…

1. Are there any aspects of current copyright law that should stay in place to protect work in the digital age?

2. How can we differentiate between amateur and professional in regard to making laws applicable to one group or the other?

3. How will we make these changes? Does it need to start with a grassroots movement? The youth themselves? Could it start with the government?

Oct 04 2010

CopyWRONG

Published by

See what I did there? So this week we get into Media Law. A few questions…

1. As iMedia designers, what role does the copyright law of others play in our work? I mostly ignore copyright regulations at the moment, but in what ways will I have to account for this in the future? Further, where is the line between “fair use” and “theft”?

2. How can we find a balance between piracy and corporate manipulation? The movie and music companies are relying on outdated sources of income while the rest of us are moving with technological progress. What’s the legal median between the pirates and CEOs?

3. What do I need to consider in designing my stuff, in regards to my own intellectual property? What process, if any, do I have to go through? Do I even care is my Flash project is stolen and not cited? How does this affect me?

Oct 03 2010

Copyright framing.

Published by

“Copyright” is a scary word in the media world.  Freaks me out.  There are the obvious rules and there’s fair use, but even those seem kind translucent to me. Of course, there’s also the philosophy of “if you aren’t SURE, don’t use it,” but either way, you lose. Say there’s a song or movie clip out there you REALLY want to use under fair use and you don’t because you’re not sure, then you miss out. If you use it and accidentally violate copyright law, you could get in pretty big trouble. Like being thrown in jail.

So copyright is scary. I’m telling you. And reading about it, I figured I’d drop a few questions about the subject. Here we go:

Internet video sites like YouTube and Vimeo are blowing UP these days. Anybody can post and view anything, and sharing is everywhere. How will the continuing development of these video sites affect copyright law and vice versa?

Copyright has been a sensitive word in the music industry since Napster rocked it like a hurricane 10 years ago. Now record companies put blocks on CDs and MP3s so that they cannot be reproduced from their original source. How would burning and copying CDs be a violation of copyright law, and do you think that these blocks are fair?

I saw “The Social Network” this weekend, which features two lawsuits Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg dealt with upon the success of the site.  Both involved parties claiming he used their ideas.  How can anyone know exactly WHO the original author was in cases like this?  And do you think there’s any way to know the real truth?

Oct 03 2010

Framing: Week 6

Published by

1. Lessig is explicit about the need to revamp the copyright system in this country in order to win the “copyright war”. What can we do in order to protect creators and protect users of copyrighted material?

2. How does the remix culture affect the way that we view copyright and fair use? Does using images/audio/text/video from other sources and combining them together in a new way create a case for fair use?

3. What are the ways in which the copyright war will change how future generations consume and use media? Will the punishments enforced on copyright offenders hinder creativity? Or will loosening the rules have an effect people’s desire to create in the first place?

Oct 01 2010

Framing Questions for Sociocultural Contexts of Interactive Media

Published by

Week 6: Sociocultural Contexts of Interactive Media

Remix
– Lawrence Lessig

1. Lessig outlines two cultures – the read-only culture (RO) model of the past and the read/write culture (RW) of the present digital age.  He uses the concept of blogs to explain how consumers redefined their relationship to the content industry through comments and tagging and that we now posses the digital tools to expand upon production.  These comment features have made their way to media news sites and jumped to a new level in dialogue.  If the internet is a source of free flowing information, should media outlets be responsible for comments left by readers on their site?  Or should reader content be monitored, thus going against the free flow?

2.  Today, digital culture permeates our lives to such an extent that it is hard to come up with anything we would deem as “new”.  The current generation will quote content from various sources to create something “new”.  The combination of content may be different, but can this remix of pre-existing content really fall under the category of new?

3. Lessig describes our sharing economy as not being regulated by a metric of price but by a set of social relations.  While Wikipedia has proven that this type of economy can be successful (people are in it because they want to be), should this mindset be applied to all internet content as a whole?  In what realms does a sharing economy not work well for all parties involved?

4.  The book offers 5 steps toward more efficient copyright law (deregulating, clear title, simplify, decriminalizing the copy, and decriminalizing file sharing).  Although these may all be thoughtful suggestions, I believe most people see copyright violation as trivial and there will always be a way to find pirated material unless more strict punishments are put in place.  Should the government simply revamp copyright laws or is stricter enforcement the real problem?

Applied Mass Communication Theory: Chapter 9
– Rosenberry and Vicker

1. The First Amendment sounds absolute in its wording (Congress shall make no law).  Did the founding fathers really want us to take this amendment as literal as it sounds?  If they were observing us today would they be satisfied with the various tiers and levels of protection we have placed on different types of expression?

2.  Privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world, especially when it comes to social networking and e-commerce.  However, should the government put laws in place that make up for people’s personal choice of providing identifying information on a medium that was built on the idea of free flowing information?  We provide this information at our own risk and to satisfy needs to associate with the internet.  Is it our own fault that the world can read so much about us?

3.  As media and technologies have advanced over the centuries, society has changed with it.  Has law kept up with all the changes and adapted adequately?

Sep 30 2010

Response: Week 5

Published by

Earlier in the week, I posted framing questions regarding the growing trend of amateurization. I questioned some of the ways that amateurization will continue to challenge and expand our creativity, as a society. Jenkins’ theory of participatory culture was further demonstrated in the documentary we watched in class on Wednesday, dealing with the related issue of copyright infringement. Copyright issues have certainly become a highly debated topic within the entertainment industry. The documentary specifically emphasized the immediate effects within the music and movie sectors worldwide.

Returning to the idea of amateurization: copyright infringement issues come into play as soon as you start examining much of the user generated content that is easily found online. Take YouTube, for instance: a hefty portion of the video content includes video “mashups,” parodies of now-famous news clips (Bedroom Intruder song, anyone?), remixes of popular songs and even entire TV episodes that are posted without permission. In some ways, it can be argued that the thought, time and effort put into these instances of amateurization, fosters the creative energy of our society. At the same time, there is a sector that would argue against the spread of this content due to directly ripping off others’ work. As I saw this tension played out in the documentary, I began to question whether we can ever achieve some degree of a happy medium between allowing the creation of amateur content (in an effort to encourage creativity, free of restrictions) and limiting the sharing of content that isn’t completely original (to avoid copyright infringement.) It’s a topic that we will continue to debate in the years to come, and perhaps we will never reach a direct solution. But regardless on where you personally stand on the issue, this generation is inarguably the first that is witnessing the revolutionary trend of amateur-infused content, reflective of the larger theories of collaboration and participatory culture, which is ultimately fostered by the Web.

Sep 29 2010

Amateurization Response

Published by

Week 5: Amateurization

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars
– Henry Jenkins

For the longest time fans of media (whether it be music, video, print, digital, or whatever) were solely on the receiving end of whatever the producers gave their audiences.  Now the fans have the opportunity to take the content they love and manipulate it.  But should we consider this a welcome opportunity?  Copyright is always one of those scary topics that people think they understand.  Where do we draw the line on borrowed content?  Thanks to the digital age, there is a growing tension between receivers and producers.  But which side should be upset?  Should we have access to what others have created and fashion those ideas into something new?  Or should the producers have the sole right to limit how their content is used and intervene in the sharing process?

In “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars”, Henry Jenkins explains that the interactive model of mass media is more symbiotic than the old model to which we have become accustomed.  He argues that culture is the result of fans interacting with the content they love.  We are no longer parasites that simply feed off whatever is handed to us. We respond and remix.  We reshape and create new ideas.  But somehow copyright always gets in the way.  Yet, it seems that the knowledge and severity of a judge in a copyright case would have a significant impact.  The laws still seem fuzzy to me, and I’m sure others feel the same.  Why else do we have groups trying to find loop holes in the system.  Something isn’t clear.  Jenkins stresses the need for regulations to be normalized.

Jenkin’s whole purpose for his article was to suggest that this is the way things should be.  He doesn’t see content as making society dumber, it’s how we handle the content.  What we do with it in the end has more meaning than the content itself.  So why take away that opportunity to respond?  According to Jenkis the world is more diverse through participatory means.  And I agree.  The reason we have expanded out ideas at light speed is because of sharing.  We share and build and grow.  Not only have the tools to share media become easier and cheaper, the tools to produce what we see at the movies or on TV is also dropping in cost.

This leads me to one of my framing questions for the week: At the end of the article, Jenkins asks what we can expect for the future of digital cinema.  Do amateur filmmakers have a chance at becoming the majority and will big movie producers go by the wayside? Although it seems hard to believe amateur individuals can step up to the big guys in any field, I wouldn’t want to say this couldn’t happen in the future of media.  Media has become collaborative and it has pulled talented people into the mix that may not have normally had the financial means to join in.  Personal computers are becoming people’s at-home-studios.  Most things that used to require a crew and special equipment can all be accounted for simply through a digital program.  One person can orchestrate the production of a film using tools sold at the consumer level.  I think we are well on our way to seeing more amateur films.  Because the internet has made it easy to share ideas and content and costs have come down in regards to production equipment, the next big producer could be Joe Shmoe working out of his one room apartment on his laptop.

Sep 29 2010

Copyright this

Published by

If music be the food of love, play on…right?

Looking at that lyric, the first thing I think about is ‘can I be sued for copyright for using that?’

Shudder. With the music industry cracking down on pirating and illegal downloading, many users are thinking twice before getting the latest episode of “True Blood” from the Internet.

But wait—isn’t the Internet supposed to be used for sharing information? How is it fair that file sharing be banned in the US but legal in other countries like Sweden?

It’s not fair, and the only people making big money off copyright are the musicians and the lawyers. Suing for copyright should be self-damning however—musicians are really slapping their biggest fans in the face by denying them full access to their music.

Plus, copyright helps to further the gap between rich and poor, like Lanier explains in his book You Are Not A Gadget. So what can we do to change this? Consider the producers in Good Copy, Bad Copy. There was a Brazilian who remixed a version of Gnarls Barkley’s song.

Maybe Americans need to follow his example. The more we use copyrighted material, the  more we expose ourselves to the law system for punishment. However, nothing will change unless it goes to court.

Copyrighted material has a long lifespan today, and it can be renewed so it stays in the same hands for years and years. We have the opportunity to file share, but with copyright controlled by a select number of power users this is impossible.

As Lanier points out, the media is connected to finance. Copyright law proves this point. The major players making money off copyright are the lawyers. Go figure.