Untitled @lightsout2012-blog - Tumblr Blog

Visit Original Link

The best example that I can think of, a media tool that expands our creativity but is also limited by laws or regulations is YouTube. YouTube is a website that lets you upload videos to the public. The subject of these videos can vary greatly in terms of their content. It could be a recording or you doing something, a live performance, a tutorial on how to use Dreamweaver, the possibilities are endless. There are certain restrictions however and anyone who has ever used YouTube in the past will know this. Sometimes there are certain audio tracks for example that is licensed by a certain company and the audio will be subsequently removed from whatever video that it was embedded in. Also if the video content is of any “copyrighted” material such as a film, or a sporting event, even if the video was recorded by an individual, it will often get taken down. This is why it’s very hard to find a full game (highlights are not affected by copyright laws) or movie on the site and this is speaking from my personal experience.

A good example of how these restrictions would limit our creativity would be if someone wanted to record a video of their performance for a talent show. They came up with a routine that was both creative and original. The only problem was that the audio they used was something that is licensed to a particular record label. When they try to post their performance on YouTube, their video gets shut down. They could use another song, but it wouldn’t have the same effect and as a result their options and in turn their creativity becomes limited.

I can understand why recording companies or other holders of intellectual property rights would be unhappy with the use of their material by individuals. The displaying of their intellectual property could mean 1 less consumer who would pay to watch the game or buy the movie when it comes out on home media. Why should someone pay when they could just watch it for free on YouTube?

I think a good way to curb around this would be to allow people to use part of the media. For example if a song is protected under copyright laws, people should be allowed to use segments of the song. That way, even if someone hears the song and likes it, listening to the song from the video wouldn’t be a replacement for buying the song itself…you don’t have the whole song. I think this would also be a great publicity and something that is similar to the function of a radio. The radio exposes you to different types of songs but listening to the radio isn’t a replacement for buying the album, since you can’t listen to that particular song whenever you want. Similarly Intellectual property owners can get more publicity by letting people use part of their songs in their videos, but at the same time not lose potential consumers to their products.

#Freedom Creators

The Ecstasy of Influence was an interesting article and I feel like it makes many valid points. One of the first examples that it gave was how Vladimir Nabokov stole the story of Lolita from Lichberg. We have always been taught that stealing someone’s idea is like stealing intellectual property. This is considered a form of plagiarism and is just as wrong as stealing material goods. Although I don’t feel like those two belong in the same category, I do feel that stealing intellectual property is wrong. In the article Lethem goes on to tell that Nabokov was able to take advantage of the situation. Because Lichberg became a prominent journalist during the Nazi era and so his early works, including Lolita faded from view.

I feel this example is almost related to something that I observe on Youtube.com, a video sharing site. Someone would write a really clever comment for a video and get lots of thumbs up. When I first read this comment, I’m usually quite amused or impressed myself. Then suddenly you start to see this exact or close to exact comment popping up in other video as well being posted by different people. The most irritating thing is that these comments would often times also get lots of thumbs up. I’m assuming that these are from people who are seeing it for the first time and thinks it’s really clever. I honestly feel like it’s one of the lowest things that you can do. Not only are you showing that you don’t have any creativity by coming up with something clever of your own your also copying someone else’s work.

Lethem also brings an insight from this example which needs to be addressed. The story of Lolita although a story deserving of literary merits, faded into obscurity when Lichberg became a journalist. Would it be ok to copy something that people don’t know about? There are obvious up and down side to this issue that I see. The upside is that by copying something that’s faded into obscurity, more people are exposed to the material. Going back to the YouTube comment example earlier, there was no guarantee that the comment I saw was something that’s posted by the original author. It could very well be something copied and the only reason I thought it was original was because it was my first time seeing it. However, the fact that someone copied it meant that I was able to get a chance to see it, a chance that I otherwise probably wouldn’t have. On the other hand, it’s a very underhanded thing to do, taking credit for someone else’s ingenuity.

In the end, I feel that it is definitely not a moral thing to do, taking credit for someone else’s work. But if the choice was between a work being copied and ultimately being able to live on, or fading into obscurity, I would definitely choose the former.

#Ecstasies and Infuences

part 4

Visit Original Link

part 3

part 2

part 1

Visit Original Link

Presidential Debate #3 blog

3:08 I thought they were in different rooms for a second from the split screen.

3:11 Is Romney saying he can fix these problems that he went over or that Obama didn't do an adequet job?

3:13 Here we go again Obama is implying that Romney said something and Romney denies saying it.

3:15 The tone seems to have changed from the last debate, more civil.

3:17 I think this is more like a debate class as the topic about world issues seem almost educational instead of personal.

3:51 I don't this argument is informative about who would do a better job, they are both saying the same thing.

3:55 Romney says again he won't take military actions. Really trying to send an image of himself out.

4:04 What decision is he talking about thats unpopular? Killing Bin Laden?

4:12 "Killing bad guys" I like this quote.

4:14 I think Obama makes a strong argument here. His actions in foreign countries are much more promising than his domestic ones

4:16 Romney said Obama is too tough on cracking down on China?? Seems hard to believe.

4:21 Romney seems a bit too sure of himself that the trade war won't start.

#Liveblog It!

Presidential Debate #2 blog

3:07 - Obama's answer to question 1 was much more indepth than Romney's, maybe going second is an significant help.

3:11 - Romney attacking Obama early, maybe Obama is too soft like they say?

3:15 - I like Obama's reference back to Jeremy, I think it makes him more relatable to audience

3:20 - Someone touched a nerve.

3:24 - Why Romney getting so agitated.

3:28 - I'm starting to think they are both supporting middle class tax cuts to get more votes from majority of population.

3:34 - This loophole argument from Obama sounds familiar.

3:46 - Romney can't seem to get enough time to talk.

3:50 - Seems like Obama's main strategy is to make it seem like Romney is always contradicting his own argument.

4:02 - I don't think her name is that hard to say, I feel like they making too much of a deal out of it.

4:01 - Funny how quickly this question about Libya turns into an argument on national security by Obama.

4:21 - Is ak-47 actually a major problem? or am I missing something.

4:25 - Obama actually said something good about Romney?

4:27 - Obama goes off topic pretty often.

4:35 - Is Obama saying that he doesn't really care about low paying domestic jobs?

4:38 - Much easier for Romney to say what he is going to do versus actually doing it, good strategy never the less.

4:40 - End

#Liveblog It!

"The key to economic success? Geography." When I saw the title of this article today I was really curious. Why would geography be the key to economic success? I thought the author might have been trying to imply factors such as easy access to raw material for factory production or shipping ports for transporting goods. After reading this article I realized that the title was somewhat misleading. There are specific regions in our country that are more economically prosperous than the rest. This however, doesn't have anything to do with the physical attribute of the land but rather "human capital". According to the article, an area that has more innovative workers with a college degree will have more economic prosperity and, at the same time, attract even more educated innovative workers to that area.

I think that this makes a lot of sense because in a country that is large as the U.S, it's impossible for every part of the country to be equal. One example I can think of on the top of my head was the civil war. During the civil war, the south, which was based off of a farming economy, was much less prosperous than the North who's economy was based off of factories and mass production. Thus the confederate soldiers had a noticeable disadvantage in terms of supply and fund.

This speaks to the importance of getting a good education. The world today requires an increasing number or skilled workers in different industries as manual labor is slowly becoming automated through new machinery and computer software. The fact that some areas of the country have more high tech industries means a higher concentration of skilled workers, and thus a higher average income. Just because our country has a central government and the same minimum wage does not make all areas of the nation equal.

This would also be something good to think about the next time one moves. Relocating to the right city that is an economic hub can just result in that bigger paycheck each month.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/the-key-to-economic-success-geography/?hpt=wo_r1

#blogify the world

Is it descrimination?

I recently read an article about someone who sued the University of Texas Austin, because of an what they perceived to be an unfair admissions policy. Aigail Noel Fisher who sued the state university after her college application was rejected in 2008 because she claimed that the individualized, discretionary admission policies violate her rights, and favor African-American and Hispanic applicants.

Even before reading this article, I was aware that many colleges and universities throughout the nation often favor minorities, or applicants of races that are traditionally less likely to get into college. Although I am not against helping minority students to succeed in their education by any means, I feel this is not a fair admissions policy. I feel that if an effort has to be made to help these minority students, it should be done before they finish high school. It is during this phase that they are establishing their foundations in different subject areas, so it would only make sense that this would be the most effect phase to strengthen that academic foundation.

The fact that college space isn't limited means that by "helping" these minority students gain admission, would also mean denying a potentially well qualified student from attending. A selective process that looks at your SAT scores, extra curricular or GPA and disregards your sex or race would be a much more fair assessment of your eligibility.

I'm not supporting Fisher by any means though. She had no proof that she was indeed rejected because of her race. She may have sued the school as a result of frustration. The Univ of Texas Austin has a policy of automatic admission for graduating seniors at the top 10% of their class. The fact that she missed the cutoff puts doubt into her argument that she really belonged there.

This case and college's admission policy based on race is being looked at by the supreme court.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us/scotus-college-admissions-race/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

#Blogify the World

was it worth it?

One show that I used to watch frequently was a show called "Locked up Abroad". I wouldn't call it a documentary but a basic summary of each episode is that it tells the true story of one of two individuals who tries to smuggle drugs out of a foreign country. The drugs are much cheaper in these countries as it's usually where the drugs are grown and processed. Most of the time these individuals are set up by drug dealers who promises a fairly large sum of money for seemingly easy work.

I think the people who agree to this are making a really bad decision for several reasons.

The first would be that it's morally wrong to help in the distribution of these drugs. Drugs such as cocaine, heroine, hashish are illegal for a reason. They can cause permanent damage to people who uses them. Did these tourist smugglers ever think that someone will probably die of an overdose or some other drug relate complication because they helped to smuggle these 10kilos of cocaine from abroad?

Secondly, these drug producing countries are well aware that people are trying to smuggle these drugs to foreign destinations. Thus the airport security are extremely tight, and the airports in these countries go out of their way to check for drugs, so it's not hard at all to get caught. These airports often use canines and full body searches. Their staff are also well trained to recognize when someone has something that they aren't suppose to have.

Finally the consequences of being caught would mean spending years in a foreign jail. Most of the time this would be a jail in a third world country where living conditions are really bad. These jails also often house much more violent criminals as well and deaths because of prison violence are a common occurrence.

Drugs smuggling is not worth it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/30/british-tourists-charged-drug-smuggling-grenada

#Blogify the World

Convergence Culture:Intro-Ch.1

Quote:"At a panel on game consoles, the big tension was between Sony (a hardware company) and Microsoft (a software company); both had ambitious plans but fundamentally different business models and visions. All agreed that the core challenge was to expand the potential uses of this cheap and readily accessible technology so that it became the "black box," the "Trojan horse" that smuggled convergence culture right into people's living rooms."

Paraphrase: Although Sony and Microsoft had different goals and expectations for their products, they both shared a common interest of making their technology the "black box" of each household or the go-to system where all types of media flows through one machine.

Question: The author seems to argue against media access moving towards a black box model, but wouldn't the presence of for example, smartphones that is slowly replacing appliances such as mp3 players, pagers, gameboys, gps, portable dvd player.. etc contradict this?

#Ascholarsayswhat?

Convergence Culture intro-ch1

Quote: "In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms."

I wasn't quite sure what the author meant by this quote. I feel what he is trying to say is that the media convergence, or the flow of media content across multiple platforms is such effective way of spreading information that no matter what the story, or brand, consumers will know about it through exposure to it through multiple types of medias.

Question:How does media convergence take place? Does the story/image/brand have to have a controversial nature or some other factor that attracts massive public attention?

#Ascholarsayswhat?

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Untitled