I realized that my most recent assignment was posted to the wrong blog. The post can be found at the following address:
http://kelsiemcneal.blogspot.com/2013/09/september-27.html
Monday, September 30, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Blog Post #3
What are the most important "harms" that you,
personally, see facing the ways intellectual property operating today, and how
are those different from or similar to the harms faced by previous generations?
I think one of the biggest problems facing the ways
intellectual property is operating today is the monopoly that the media is
creating.
“…The different forms of media were
owned by separate media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only
a few companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just three
companies control more than 85 percent of the media” (Lessig, 2004).
With such a small amount of people controlling what
everybody sees, biased opinions are more likely to be used. Lessig also touches
on the fact that controversial ads are going to be regulated even more. While
sometimes this can be a good thing, as in to not offend anyone or any group of
people, too much concentration silences the smaller opinions. Allowing only a
few people (those who run the media) to control what all of the viewers are
allowed to see isn’t necessarily the safest thing when it comes to expressing
an individual opinion.
In my generation, we basically grew up on the developing internet and other technology resources. We are able to share and learn about more information at the tip of our fingertips. Earlier generations didn't have the ease of information that we do today. Now, we can search a few words and come up with a whole piece of research someone has been working on.
In previous generations, publishing companies were the ones to produce the work to the public and try to get more people to read it. They raised the prices of books and research information so the creator, as well as the publisher, would get the money they deserved. When the internet came about, the need for the publisher lessened. They aren't absolutely necessary, since authors can directly publish their work online. This should greatly lower the price of books and textbooks, but since we're in a transitional phase, it's going to take more work.
In my generation, we basically grew up on the developing internet and other technology resources. We are able to share and learn about more information at the tip of our fingertips. Earlier generations didn't have the ease of information that we do today. Now, we can search a few words and come up with a whole piece of research someone has been working on.
In previous generations, publishing companies were the ones to produce the work to the public and try to get more people to read it. They raised the prices of books and research information so the creator, as well as the publisher, would get the money they deserved. When the internet came about, the need for the publisher lessened. They aren't absolutely necessary, since authors can directly publish their work online. This should greatly lower the price of books and textbooks, but since we're in a transitional phase, it's going to take more work.
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004. Print.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Views on Copyright
and copyright libertarians, and explain your answers. (It would probably be helpful to define those terms very specifically.)
When it comes to the copyright world, there are many different opinions on how it should be regulated and distributed. Since it's become such an easy thing to disobey copyright laws, much more opinions are forming on how it should be regulated. It is a difficult task, and there are also a greater amount of different views on how it should be monitored. For instance, an artist will probably have different opinions and reasoning than will someone that sits at home and downloads music and games illegally all the time.
A copyright communist would be someone who is completely open to sharing materials. This could be a website such as the pirate bay or creative commons, where everyone can upload their files and also download whatever files they want. They feel that everyone should be able to share the files that they are distributing on their websites.
Lessig would definitely be a copyright liberal in this situation. He is looking for innovating new ideas to share with the world about how to change the copyright laws and rules. Copyright liberals are looking to the future to make progression and reformation of the copyright and sharing world.
Copyright conservatives would be set on the way things are now, since they have stayed pretty traditional. Change is not something they see necessary. They want to keep the laws and rules regulated in the same way they are, and preserving existing conditions is their most important goal. I think a lot of music artists are copyright conservatives. This is because they benefit from people purchasing their work, and if people are pirating it or stealing it, they don't make the money they intended. Their careers depend on who buys their music. Fundamentalists also have a very similar mindset, so I would use the same people as an example.
Copyright libertarians would believe that the government shouldn't have anything to do with how their work is distributed. It should be about how the individual wants their work shared. Someone that comes to mind would be Macklemore, the Seattle rapper. A few months back he was talking about how if you can't afford his music to pirate it and share it with your friends. Not many artists would promote that.
When it comes to the copyright world, there are many different opinions on how it should be regulated and distributed. Since it's become such an easy thing to disobey copyright laws, much more opinions are forming on how it should be regulated. It is a difficult task, and there are also a greater amount of different views on how it should be monitored. For instance, an artist will probably have different opinions and reasoning than will someone that sits at home and downloads music and games illegally all the time.
A copyright communist would be someone who is completely open to sharing materials. This could be a website such as the pirate bay or creative commons, where everyone can upload their files and also download whatever files they want. They feel that everyone should be able to share the files that they are distributing on their websites.
Lessig would definitely be a copyright liberal in this situation. He is looking for innovating new ideas to share with the world about how to change the copyright laws and rules. Copyright liberals are looking to the future to make progression and reformation of the copyright and sharing world.
Copyright conservatives would be set on the way things are now, since they have stayed pretty traditional. Change is not something they see necessary. They want to keep the laws and rules regulated in the same way they are, and preserving existing conditions is their most important goal. I think a lot of music artists are copyright conservatives. This is because they benefit from people purchasing their work, and if people are pirating it or stealing it, they don't make the money they intended. Their careers depend on who buys their music. Fundamentalists also have a very similar mindset, so I would use the same people as an example.
Copyright libertarians would believe that the government shouldn't have anything to do with how their work is distributed. It should be about how the individual wants their work shared. Someone that comes to mind would be Macklemore, the Seattle rapper. A few months back he was talking about how if you can't afford his music to pirate it and share it with your friends. Not many artists would promote that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)