Wanted to share a couple things that I didn't get to during my presentation.
Jon Stewart blasting away at Twitter:
And Jon completely taking CNBC to the cleaners about their "reporting" and rosy crystal ball commentary about the economy. Rick Santelli – the "reporter" that went ape on the trading floor complaining about bailouts – was supposed to be a guest on The Daily Show, but was a no show. Well, like when McCain bailed on Letterman, you don't bail on high profile talk show hosts.
CNBC didn't have a response it seems.
And one more:
Here's a blog/bitch session about Lessig's Creative Commons undermining the photography market. I can see points on both sides of the issue and still haven't decided what to really think about it. Very tricky to navigate some of them. If there are lots of "good enough" images that can be used under CC licenses why pay for images? Yet, if a art director or someone of the like needed quality work and found a photo through CC and licensed other images from a photographer for market prices the system worked, right? Still don't know...
Showing posts with label lessig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lessig. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Remix Chapters Intro-5 RESPONSE
I found it very interesting to read the examination of the student friend of the author writing essays with quotes from established writers. This openly adopted form of literary remix with attribution had never been put into copyright context for me before. It presents an interesting notion of how cultural norms and processes are learned and applied. Why is it that literary remix is acceptable yet Girl Talk is challenged by law in their adaptation of remix with music and video? Do we hold music and video to a higher standard or value than literature? Or has the exponential growth in the last couple decades of new medias and the tools to create, publish and share content outpaced the moral adjustments of our society? I mean, let's face it the written word has been around a few thousand years. We have had plenty of time to adjust the uses of literary works.
Yet, new technologies have already begun to alter the literary landscape even today. It was announced the last few days that a Creative Commons license has been created for Twitter (yes, I have an affliction with the platform and am seeking professional assistance). You can even look at the recent brouhaha over Facebook changing the Terms of Service. The change brought into question several aspects of copyright of not just images and video but text comments and information. But after a groundswell of anger derived from a short blog posting and discourse between the company and its users, reverted to the original ToS. The heavy coverage of the issue by mainstream media also forced the quick discussion. But the issue of copyright still wasn't solved, only a continued delay in the need to address the 800-pound gorilla in the corner of the room frothing at the mouth.
There are communities in some of these mediums that embrace remix as part of their culture though. Take the electronic genre of music for example including Trance, House, Techno, Drum & Bass just to narrow it down a little. Many of the these artists including upper echelon producers create tracks that they openly allow to be remixed and altered, as long as there is credit back to the original artist. All while being done in the land of commerce for profits. For example look at Armin Van Buuren's "The Sound of Goodbye" track. One song was remixed nearly 20 times and then compiled onto an album. Each of the remixers will also be using and selling their versions of the track. But that is not counting the live remixing at performances or concerts by other artists even of the remixed versions. Most electronica shows are all about live remixing. The artists spread each other's work in order to expose more audiences to the music. Electronica tracks have typically been DRM free, save for some listed on iTunes based on the record label, in order to enable the opportunity of remix, including productions of podcasts and streaming music channels on the Internet.
While reading about the implementation of DRM to media, I reflected back to the topic we have talked about several times in class with regard to China and limiting the tools, not necessarily the content. The limitations of the DRM were an attempt to re-harness the limitations of analog content by taking away one of digital media's finest asset: exact duplication. But in limiting the tools the users of the tools, the creators, are in the end handcuffed in progressing the form and function of content. The notion of being an apprentice under the guidance of an established creator, such as the greats of art history or music, has been hamstrung for the almighty dollar. But in many instances the dollars don't even make their way to the originating artist. The mega-corporations managing all that content end up retaining the majority of it all.
In the end, until the notion of copyright and ownership are clearly defined, the legal threats and battles will continue. The copyright law has become overly restrictive and the notion of "fair use" has only gotten fuzzier. Creative Commons allows for some creators to open their works up to new futures, but many do not know of its existence. (One more hurdle of media literacy.) Or we can just wait a another decade or so for the boomers to lose their grip on control and old belief systems and re-institute the RW culture of societies past. Only, that waiting perpetuates the restraint of potential learning and exploration of a remix culture.
Yet, new technologies have already begun to alter the literary landscape even today. It was announced the last few days that a Creative Commons license has been created for Twitter (yes, I have an affliction with the platform and am seeking professional assistance). You can even look at the recent brouhaha over Facebook changing the Terms of Service. The change brought into question several aspects of copyright of not just images and video but text comments and information. But after a groundswell of anger derived from a short blog posting and discourse between the company and its users, reverted to the original ToS. The heavy coverage of the issue by mainstream media also forced the quick discussion. But the issue of copyright still wasn't solved, only a continued delay in the need to address the 800-pound gorilla in the corner of the room frothing at the mouth.
There are communities in some of these mediums that embrace remix as part of their culture though. Take the electronic genre of music for example including Trance, House, Techno, Drum & Bass just to narrow it down a little. Many of the these artists including upper echelon producers create tracks that they openly allow to be remixed and altered, as long as there is credit back to the original artist. All while being done in the land of commerce for profits. For example look at Armin Van Buuren's "The Sound of Goodbye" track. One song was remixed nearly 20 times and then compiled onto an album. Each of the remixers will also be using and selling their versions of the track. But that is not counting the live remixing at performances or concerts by other artists even of the remixed versions. Most electronica shows are all about live remixing. The artists spread each other's work in order to expose more audiences to the music. Electronica tracks have typically been DRM free, save for some listed on iTunes based on the record label, in order to enable the opportunity of remix, including productions of podcasts and streaming music channels on the Internet.
While reading about the implementation of DRM to media, I reflected back to the topic we have talked about several times in class with regard to China and limiting the tools, not necessarily the content. The limitations of the DRM were an attempt to re-harness the limitations of analog content by taking away one of digital media's finest asset: exact duplication. But in limiting the tools the users of the tools, the creators, are in the end handcuffed in progressing the form and function of content. The notion of being an apprentice under the guidance of an established creator, such as the greats of art history or music, has been hamstrung for the almighty dollar. But in many instances the dollars don't even make their way to the originating artist. The mega-corporations managing all that content end up retaining the majority of it all.
In the end, until the notion of copyright and ownership are clearly defined, the legal threats and battles will continue. The copyright law has become overly restrictive and the notion of "fair use" has only gotten fuzzier. Creative Commons allows for some creators to open their works up to new futures, but many do not know of its existence. (One more hurdle of media literacy.) Or we can just wait a another decade or so for the boomers to lose their grip on control and old belief systems and re-institute the RW culture of societies past. Only, that waiting perpetuates the restraint of potential learning and exploration of a remix culture.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lawrence Lessig vs. Stephen Colbert
Really interesting argument about copyright from a recent show. It's funny as hell.
I see aspects of both sides of the battle. I'm not sure that one side or the other is absolute, the future is most likely a blend of something in the middle. And it will be based on the type of the content and the content producer.
Found this via a photography business blog that is hellbent on copyright protections. Take a read of John Harrington's freak out if you like.
I see aspects of both sides of the battle. I'm not sure that one side or the other is absolute, the future is most likely a blend of something in the middle. And it will be based on the type of the content and the content producer.
Found this via a photography business blog that is hellbent on copyright protections. Take a read of John Harrington's freak out if you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)