Information Feudalism and Piracy

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Litman and Copyright

Copyright as a phrase by itself is a loaded word that comes with responsibilities and consequences in filing a copyright for ownership of a good or service. Litman has an interesting section about how infringement is made daily by the population of the world, in form of minor changes and alterations to parodies and complete remakes. “An art student completing a class assignment goes to an art museum and meticulously copies a Picasso painting. A high school band rcords its garage-practice rendition of a top 40 hit. These things happen everyday, and are all prima facie infringing.” (Litman 8). It’s interesting to see how something as docile and innocent as a man changing a song and re-writing the words for his wife on their wedding day, can be charged and fined because of copyright infringement simply because he did not attain permission to do this. The world has gone mad with lawsuits and wars over property that people continuously claim are theirs and have no right to be tampered with. To an extent that is true, no one in their right mind would want a song they created “ruined” or a movie they made which has great meaning behind it “redone”. These copyrights do serve a purpose because they protect the very rights that creators have for their finished masterpieces, but at the same time trhey battle the fight against individuals who want to compete in that same market, or feel they can make “it” better in their own vision.
In a sense, some could say that the copyright industry is a monopoly, they are the ones that write the rules on whether or not a product passes (The Washington Copyright Office). Also, the Office turns inventors ideas away if they are too similar causing changes in original planning as well as ideas being dumped and restarted from scratch. It’s hard to say who is right and who is wrong in the copyright industry, that is a reason that Litman enjoys teaching this topic. There seems to be a double standard when it comes to the world of copyrights, such as the, “It’s ok if I do it, but not you.” Type of mentality. I mean, this is the reason we have copyrights correct? So that others cannot come up wit a similar idea and take it as their own work for them to make oodles and oodles of profit and recognition from it.

Copyright

The speaker in this crazy rant brought up some valid points about how individuals in the past could pick and choose different media and content and then put it all together to be called their own. His story about how Walt Disney stole ideas from Steamboat Bill since copyright wasn't existent and claimed it as his own just shows how people get away with and are comfortable stealing from other peoples' work. In Asia it's the same, gaming companies, anime companies as well as other technological aspects do not use copyrights over there, the culture is based off the honor system. A person can upload any of their ideas onto the internet and not be fined since there aren't laws that protect the companies content. That's a social norm over in asia though, in America this is seen as opportunity to get ahead with a great idea.

The copyright wars though have gone beyond what they are intended for, companies make thousands if not millions for giving permissions to others so they may use their content. For the guy that wanted to use the Simpson's picture, $25k would have to be thrown down for the permission to use it. That's highly absurd, since now copyrights are being viewed as a window of making money instead of their original goal which was just to protect concent from being stolen and acredited to others. The speaker does bring up a good point though about how there are grey areas in the technological aspect of our world today, stating that as long as it's tweaked and not the same then someone can copyright that image and not get in trouble with the law aspect behind the technological changes.

AHHH LUNENFIELD

In the reading of Screen Grabs: The Digital Dialect and New Media Theory, by Lunenfield he is explaining the relationship between the digital world and how new media (technology/ideas) have played off of each other over the decades that our civilization has become more advanced. Lunenfield knows here that the digital dialect is written in the ancient form of 0’s and 1’s which we call binary code, the language of technology. New media is the concept that the old technology is now obsolete and new media is created from scratch. Again, we see here that Lunenfield’s support of this argument simply forgets that the code is the same all around new or old since each technology needs to have a common language. He speaks of technology such as the camera and the first telephone (invented by Alexander Graham Bell) and states that the first models are old technology, long forgotten and remade into something more presentable. He breaks down the word down like a fraction and says, “…digital is more than simply a technical term to describes systems and media dependent on electronic computation…” (xv) which means that the digital age of technology goes further than automatic electronic computations that need no human involvement, “…just as the analog, which preceded it, describes more than a proportional system of representation…” (xv continued). He believes that the digital technology used today simply cannot be describes by the word ‘digital’ since more functions are occurring in the background of the operations. Man made such concept of quick, efficient, effortless technology available like the telephone and how it switched from signals being sent through a wire from room to room, to poles being built up and connecting cities, do the new digital phones we have to day that have built in receptors. The technology has changed yes, but the code of telephone signals has stayed the same throughout the ages.
Lunenfield has an obsession with relating how technology was and how technology is different today, that there has been this revolution of advancement and the root inventions have been long forgotten and new ideas and innovations are used to produce the same end result…efficiency. He knows that cultures are dependent technology and wants the world to realize that new media and the digital dialect are two separate entities that work off each other to mesh into the whole “electronic stew”. The stew consists of the mixture of all these things such as accessable information which is also stored, therefor mixing and creating the stew.

Tech-nizzle on the Pho-drizzle

Lunenfeld brings up the argument that digital photography is not something that is viewed as a real photography, since a computer has developed the image and how the picture looks through contemporary technology. He states that, "When all images are created or modified by the computer, the photographic is no longer a privileged realm of visual communication, segregated by its mechanical qualities (60)." So because this new form of photography that humans have invented is used by a computer camera, it isn't viewed as real. One could argue the same thing about film photography, since it's captured through a lense and printed on to film through light it isn't a real photograph since something is creating the image. So by what definition is real photography according to Lunenfield if he's bringing up such a deep, and obtuse topic? If someone were to hold a 35mm picture and a digital CLR camera picture I'm sure that someone who doesn't know film would know the difference. If film is in a person's hand and completes the same objective, in retrospective views and realistic views that form of phography is real no matter how it's created. All forms of photography are switching from the 35mm film to digital since it's easier to doctor and put into literature these days. Lunenfield seems to be delving into a realm that he believes is important and should not change, but it seems that he forgets that the film cameras replaced painting art when they first came out. That's the argument that should be looked back upon before arguing how "things should be" instead of "how things are and were". If looked back upon, 35mm photos were doctored before in many instances which proved that photos could be tampered with and considered false "realms of visual communication". Paintings of the past were mimmiced by other painters also which proved that something as rare as a masterpiece could be re-done in almost the same exact style and format. Take the fake Mona Lisa's for example, there are posters and framed paintings sold in all parts of the world. With the right skill and knowhow of the chemical process used in creating 35mm photos, that could be tampered with as well disproving Lunenfield's arguments about the reality that photography has behind it. Large news corporations depend on their magazines to be completed promptly and professionally, using the old styles of photography became too costly. This new age digital photography is more expensive upfront but cheaper in the end since it's a one time fee start up cost; no film, no chemicals, all that is needed is a printer capable of photo printing.

Games and the Virtual

Johnson in the reading poses two great arguments about how the world views gaming and reading. On one side of the argument there is the fact that reading can promote intelligence, and make a person more active in the community and as a citizen, "People who read for pleasure are many times more likely than those who don't to visit museums and attend musical performances..." (Johnson 18). The argument that support this is that kids seclude themselves to playing games that do not teach or advocate learning. The flip side to this argument is that video games promote hand eye coordination, problem-solving skills, judgment, social interaction and norms, relationship help, studying strategies. Here is why exactly, in video games that are on the console, games that involve analyzing a situation and figuring out a problem have children begin thinking outside the box to meet the objective; in games where a person needs to memorize a series of sequences/patterns/events to pass to the next level allow the players to use memorization in the games which help in the future since the brain is being stimulated. Ryan states that this could be an example of the virtual following the two faces, games are apart of the electronic culture of today that have been mixed in with computer-mediated activites as the virtual playground that kids today now play with instead of on. A kids idea of a good time is playing video games with his buddy and they feel they are learning at the time, the social norm believes that these games are rotting their mind and serve no purpose. Is that true though? Is playing a game, and learning new ways of thinking, acting, and perceiving rotting the mind of children today? The society that which a person lives in judges that simply because it would be taboo to go against the grain and do what others do not want. With online gaming, the virtual as a potential totally becomes involved, such as a game called 2nd Life. In this game, people live their virtual lives as they wish to live thim in this real life. Their vision of reality is skewed since people can completely make their life in 2nd Life different than that of their real one and be the person they wish to be. The virtual is a big broad subject that is subject to change as the future moves on, and the world's views change on what is socially acceptable.

Unfinished Technology?

The Mannovich reading is the description of how the media (technology) of today is formed around the 5 principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding. What is effectively examined is the tangibility of new media in the present day and age, it’s influence on humans and daily activities, and every aspect of the computer world. This new media is described as “…mathematically and can be manipulated via algorithms.” What Mannovich here argues is that old media isn’t exactly so old, it’s still present but formed and shaped under the same viable coding and presented as something new. All data in the computer world is written as 0’s and 1’s, how they are used is entirely up to programmers who invent new ideas and the instruments to fulfill those purposes. Lunenfeld would perceive the coding and the computer itself an “unfinished” instrument, solely because a computer cannot finish a task itself without a user. The user has to first build a computer with a purpose in the coding for it to carry it’s task, but without the human it is nothing but a shell that collects dust. Technology in computers is voted as something that will make the impossible, possible and life easier to live. Computers of the future cannot finish what humans are able to, such as surgeries, novels, portraits, they cannot complete these tasks because they lack creativity and again; the necessary part of having a creator to give it a specific purpose for its creation. Mannovich argues that “human intentionality can be removed from the creative process, at least in part" because of the automation in computer programs that allow for templates, colors, algorithms to be involved immediately instead of concentration on the task at hand. Are computers a bad thing to have in life? Some would argue yes because they make us less human, depending on code and variables to make shortcuts in life. Some would argue no, because efficiency and simplicity is what people need to be able to perform their daily tasks comfortably. Mannovich and Lunenfeld share a common view, that computers themselves have a limit, because of their source…the coding in their media. 0’s and 1’s go only so far versus a human mind, the human mind can make business “finish” since it’s capable of constantly thinking of new ways to solve issues. Coding can go only as far as a programmer can, which is the limit to technology in this day and age.