Final Project link

http://digitalmusicdoesntsuckyo.blogspot.com/2011/12/digital-music-doesnt-suck-yo.html

Revised Second Assignment with Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDZwqSNvsw

           

             The conflict between websites that revolve around user generated content and copyright are nothing new in modern culture. There is still a very fine line between what is actually acceptable and what is not. This line is still yet to be defined. As mentioned in the book Remix by Lawrence Lessig, these issues of intellectual property are getting increasingly harder to police.  He states that our laws need to be drastically rethought out and reformed to adapt to these new forms of media distribution.

            One up and coming social media site that falls into this category is Justin.tv, a video streaming website and service. Justin.tv is similar to YouTube in that it allows for anyone to create their own video content to be shared with the world. All one needs is a capture device and some form of software, most of which is free, to upload to the site. This makes it so that anyone can create their own live broadcasting channel. The site is also like YouTube in that it is sustained by advertisements, and even gives popular users the option to sign a contract with the site and earn money from their own ads.

            Surprisingly what ends up being the most broadcasted and most watched form of content on the site is streamed video footage of users playing video games. It has even become so popular for the site that they now feature all video game related channels on a separate domain called Twitch.tv. It seems amazing that what is generally considered to be a type of media that is meant to be experienced in an interactive manner is enjoyable for people to watch and experience vicariously. It is interesting to note though that in South Korea they have been broadcasting footage of competitive video games on the internet as well as cable TV for over a decade now. This phenomenon has grown to become a significant part of their pop culture and turned into what is basically their national sport. Who would have thought that video games could be viewed as a spectator sport?

            

            The rest of the content featured on the site is mostly just live video feeds of people recording podcasts or talk shows. Occasionally, sponsors of sports teams will broadcast exhibition events, but that’s really about it for content. The site also filters all the channels for content that is noticeably infringing on copyrighted material. You aren’t likely to find streams of Disney movies or network television, and if you do they won’t be there very long. Because of this, the site does manage to follow in accordance to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

            However, the huge user base of video game streamers is a growing concern. Should these internet broadcasters be allowed to make money off of others viewing copyrighted material on their channels? There is currently a bill pending in the United States Senate, Bill S.978, that makes streaming copyrighted material over the internet for commercial or financial gain a felony punishable up to five years in prison. The bill does not address specifically whether streaming video games is covered, but many speculate that it could be easily grandfathered in and leaves the option to sue open to the parent company. There have since been many petitions started by people who make money in their spare time by streaming video games and other content that could potentially be punishable by the bill. One could be potentially liable even if copyrighted music is being played unintentionally in the background of one of their videos, similar to the Lenz v. Universal case. What happens if a song that is protected by copyright law is part of the soundtrack to a game being streamed? There are all of sorts grey areas and implications that this bill brings up.

            Due to these grey areas, one reform that needs to happen to accommodate these types of sites is that the copyright laws regarding streaming need to be simpler and more specific. This is one of the reforms that Lessig mentions in his book. I think most companies and consumers would argue that streaming footage of someone playing video games will not affect the overall sales, at least not negatively. People who were not likely to purchase a game in the first place may have just as well rented or borrowed it from a friend. By watching live footage they do not obtain any permanent possession of the product. If anything, streaming can really be viewed as free marketing. The bill should be changed to exclude this type of streaming from copyright infringement since there is not a direct copy of the product being distributed.

            This change would be overall very beneficial because it would transfer over to other user created video sites like YouTube. The issue of copyrighted music playing in the background of videos is something that needs to be reconsidered legally. Anything that would decrease the amount of people getting punished for copyright infringement when their intent was not profit in the first place would be greatly beneficial.

            Another reform mentioned in the book Remix by Lessig would be deregulating amateur creativity. One very great asset of video sharing sights is that they promote the education of video production. While streaming and creating videos isn’t necessarily a difficult task, there are a lot of opportunities for one to spend time increasing the production value if they decide that it is something they want to pursue as a hobby. Many of these skills would transfer over if they decided they wanted to go into broadcasting or the film industry.

            One example of this from Lessig’s book is where he mentions kids creating AMVs, or anime music videos. These entail editing clips from Japanese animated movies and television shows with music. While this violates all sorts of copyright laws, most of these kids really put a great deal of time into producing these “music videos.” In the book, one father even mentions that his son was able to get into university after showing the portfolio board his AMVs.

            While it may not entail the creation of original work, there is much to benefit from being more lenient on this type of media sharing. There is virtually no financial damage being done to the copyright holders. In return, these kids are given the motivation to learn to create and develop the skills to express themselves through new mediums. It would be a huge educational disservice to punish this sort of media production. Learning and education is something that has always needed to be exempt from copyright because its motives, for the most part, are not primarily for profit.

            The ways in which people seek entertainment and education are evolving. The first impulse of the older generation may be to punish what they don’t understand. They are blinded by tunnel vision. These are not children being unproductive and lazy, these are students of the greatest learning community man has ever known, and they are teaching themselves.

A Look at Justin.tv, Lessig’s Remix, and Copyright

           

             The conflict between websites that revolve around user generated content and copyright are nothing new in modern culture. There is still a very fine line between what is actually acceptable and what is not. This line is still yet to be defined. As mentioned in the book Remix by Lawrence Lessig, these issues of intellectual property are getting increasingly harder to police.  He states that our laws need to be drastically rethought out and reformed to adapt to these new forms of media distribution.

            One up and coming social media site that falls into this category is Justin.tv, a video streaming website and service. Justin.tv is similar to YouTube in that it allows for anyone to create their own video content to be shared with the world. All one needs is a capture device and some form of software, most of which is free, to upload to the site. This makes it so that anyone can create their own live broadcasting channel. The site is also like YouTube in that it is sustained by advertisements, and even gives popular users the option to sign a contract with the site and earn money from their own ads.

            Surprisingly what ends up being the most broadcasted and most watched form of content on the site is streamed video footage of users playing video games. It has even become so popular for the site that they now feature all video game related channels on a separate domain called Twitch.tv. It seems amazing that what is generally considered to be a type of media that is meant to be experienced in an interactive manner is enjoyable for people to watch and experience vicariously. It is interesting to note though that in South Korea they have been broadcasting footage of competitive video games on the internet as well as cable TV for over a decade now. This phenomenon has grown to become a significant part of their pop culture and turned into what is basically their national sport. Who would have thought that video games could be viewed as a spectator sport?

            

            The rest of the content featured on the site is mostly just live video feeds of people recording podcasts or talk shows. Occasionally, sponsors of sports teams will broadcast exhibition events, but that’s really about it for content. The site also filters all the channels for content that is noticeably infringing on copyrighted material. You aren’t likely to find streams of Disney movies or network television, and if you do they won’t be there very long. Because of this, the site does manage to follow in accordance to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

            However, the huge user base of video game streamers is a growing concern. Should these internet broadcasters be allowed to make money off of others viewing copyrighted material on their channels? There is currently a bill pending in the United States Senate, Bill S.978, that makes streaming copyrighted material over the internet for commercial or financial gain a felony punishable up to five years in prison. The bill does not address specifically whether streaming video games is covered, but many speculate that it could be easily grandfathered in and leaves the option to sue open to the parent company. There have since been many petitions started by people who make money in their spare time by streaming video games and other content that could potentially be punishable by the bill. One could be potentially liable even if copyrighted music is being played unintentionally in the background of one of their videos, similar to the Lenz v. Universal case. What happens if a song that is protected by copyright law is part of the soundtrack to a game being streamed? There are all of sorts grey areas and implications that this bill brings up.

            Due to these grey areas, one reform that needs to happen to accommodate these types of sites is that the copyright laws regarding streaming need to be simpler and more specific. This is one of the reforms that Lessig mentions in his book. I think most companies and consumers would argue that streaming footage of someone playing video games will not affect the overall sales, at least not negatively. People who were not likely to purchase a game in the first place may have just as well rented or borrowed it from a friend. By watching live footage they do not obtain any permanent possession of the product. If anything, streaming can really be viewed as free marketing. The bill should be changed to exclude this type of streaming from copyright infringement since there is not a direct copy of the product being distributed.

            This change would be overall very beneficial because it would transfer over to other user created video sites like YouTube. The issue of copyrighted music playing in the background of videos is something that needs to be reconsidered legally. Anything that would decrease the amount of people getting punished for copyright infringement when their intent was not profit in the first place would be greatly beneficial.

            Another reform mentioned in the book Remix by Lessig would be deregulating amateur creativity. One very great asset of video sharing sights is that they promote the education of video production. While streaming and creating videos isn’t necessarily a difficult task, there are a lot of opportunities for one to spend time increasing the production value if they decide that it is something they want to pursue as a hobby. Many of these skills would transfer over if they decided they wanted to go into broadcasting or the film industry.

            One example of this from Lessig’s book is where he mentions kids creating AMVs, or anime music videos. These entail editing clips from Japanese animated movies and television shows with music. While this violates all sorts of copyright laws, most of these kids really put a great deal of time into producing these “music videos.” In the book, one father even mentions that his son was able to get into university after showing the portfolio board his AMVs.

            While it may not entail the creation of original work, there is much to benefit from being more lenient on this type of media sharing. There is virtually no financial damage being done to the copyright holders. In return, these kids are given the motivation to learn to create and develop the skills to express themselves through new mediums. It would be a huge educational disservice to punish this sort of media production. Learning and education is something that has always needed to be exempt from copyright because its motives, for the most part, are not primarily for profit.

            The ways in which people seek entertainment and education are evolving. The first impulse of the older generation may be to punish what they don’t understand. They are blinded by tunnel vision. These are not children being unproductive and lazy, these are students of the greatest learning community man has ever known, and they are teaching themselves.

Assignment 1 Revision

http://www.appstate.edu/~mansfieldne/Assignment1Revision.htm

My Ugly Page

http://www.appstate.edu/~mansfieldne/uglypage.htm

First Web Writing Assignment

           As I recall, my very first experience with the internet must have been when I was about 9 or 10 years old. Occasionally, when I was that age my mom would bring me to work with her when I wasn’t in school. She used to let me use her work computer to play around with various programs and browse the web while she was in meetings. I had acquired a decent amount of experience for someone of that age using computers through playing computer games over at my friend’s houses and in my school’s computer lab. My family however did not own a home computer at that time as both my parents already had work computers. This made any chance for me to use a computer something that was deeply sought after.

            I remember my mom’s work computer was a Macintosh of some kind. It was one of the ones with the bulky transparent cases as I recall. All of the other computers that I had used before then had been running Windows. My mom owned a Macintosh because she taught in the art department of a local university. She and all of her colleagues had been given Macs.  The difference in operating system obviously meant nothing to me at that age, however, it did indirectly influence one of my first internet experiences.

            

           Upon opening the Netscape browser on her computer one was directed to the default Apple Computers homepage. I’m not sure if this is still as big a feature on their site today, but back then there was a Quicktime video section(old trailers page) of the website where they had trailers upon trailers of unreleased movies. I easily spent several hours watching those videos, as well as waiting for them to load, while I waited for my mom to come back from her meetings. To me that was a big deal since that was really one of the first ways to watch movie trailers on demand.

            One other common internet activity that I used to have while using my mom’s computer was visiting the official Star Wars Fan Club website. As a child I was obsessed with the Star Wars universe and mythos. I found that website amazing as a kid because I could go and basically immerse myself in the extended Star Wars universe by reading all sorts of stories and fictional biographies. While albeit quite nerdy, I really enjoyed being able to read the fiction on that website and look at all the movie concept art.

            

           Apart from those two things, I remember not knowing what to make of the rest of the internet. Loading pages on whatever sort of connection my mom’s office had was very slow which made exploring random web pages time consuming and difficult. This was probably for the best. It is unfortunate though that I my first experience was not more educational as the internet was more or less intended to be.

            I did eventually learn to use the web as a resource for information in middle school. I remember everyone in my public school district being given a school email address to correspond with one another and share research with other students for group projects. Probably the first internet source I used for research was Microsoft Encarta. I’m not even sure that this still exists with Wikipedia now, but I remember it being not that great. Web encyclopedias have really come a long way since then.

            

            While my first encounters with the internet were for the most part based in entertainment and not education, they still mostly reflect the technology envisioned by Vannevar Bush. My first impression of the internet is very similar to how I envision the memex in that both machines provide information conveniently on demand. The comparison to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s opinion of the wood stove would probably have been more accurate at the time if I had been older. I may have then been able to see that while the internet is an amazing tool for learning it also has the potential to be the next generation “idiot box.”

            I still today feel though that for the most part the comparison to Bush’s memex is more or less accurate. It really has done more for sharing and organizing information than anyone back then could have imagined. I’m not denying that it hasn’t had a negative affect on social and domestic life since then though. It has made some very drastic changes to our everyday lives that some people don’t really even consider. How much time do brick and mortar stores have left with everything being available conveniently online? In some ways people have little reason to go outside at all anymore. One must keep in mind though that there are always pros and cons when a new technology is introduced into society. I think it’s hard to argue that the internet does not have the same potential to make knowledge way more accessible.  The difference between the medicine and the poison is in the dose.

First Post

What's up guys. My name is Nat Mansfield. I'm a junior and majoring in IDS. Really looking forward to this class.