Group items tagged

"UCLA Professor of Law Neil Netanel discusses the evolution of sampling and the jurisprudence of sampling, and the current state of copyright law in regard to the practice. He also discusses where the line between "fair use" and copyright infringement is currently considered to be, and the risks that artists take on when they choose to sample existing works." Exactly what we talked about in class: uncertainty, dangers, chained creativity (fewer sampling due to the expense of clearing rights, as well as having to hide the samples deep within the track due to fear of lawsuits).

the huffington post discusses new media

A center for social media where many discuss the emerging remix culture

Dr. E. Michael Harrington discusses why sampling should have fair use privileges.

Remixes or rip-offs? You decide, but here are ten popular examples of the same issues we discussed in class (and yes, Vanilla Ice is included.) 

Remix blog; discusses society and remix, file sharing, sampling, and some of the things we went over in class. 

When catching up on some SP episodes this weekend I cam across this: an episode where kyle gets kidnapped by apple, because he did not read the iTunes contract before clicking agree. this brought me back to our discussion about Facebook and their terms and agreement.

This is a cool article that briefly discusses the history of file-sharing!  We all kind of know the jist of it, but it's interesting to see it all written out.

An analysis of new media and a discussion about who control it--and what effects they have on the contemporary artist 

Copyright vs. Innovation Clearly being addressed in today's context from Napster to Spotify, just like we discussed last week. Please note how creepy this guy's photo is.

This article discusses the long Jenkin's publication we looked at in class

Like Jenkins discusses in the Participatory Culture, more and more children have access to creating technology that was at first limited to "experts" or adults. This article provides and example of this in Thomas Suarez who is a 12 year old who has created several of his own apps for iPads and iPhones. He has also has created an App Club at his school.

Not entirely educational, but the link lists almost every example in media of when a fictional character thinks of an "original" idea that is in fact recycled from the past (like what is discussed with the Lolita article).

Another viewpoint regarding Emily White's post and David Lowery's response.

Well, this article basically sums up our class discussion today. Starts with Emily White, ends with Amanda Palmer.

Totally falls into our discussion from last week about copyright.

This article discusses how technology has made plagiarism more easily to achieve by accident. Also, the first search that comes up on google if you type in "how to avoid" is "...plagiarism"!!!

While it is true that oneof the goals of the Copyright Act is to discourage infringement, it is by no means the only goal of that Act. The Constitution grants to Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good. For example, in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975), we discussed the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act as follows: "The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." (Footnotes omitted.) We reiterated this theme in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-350 (1991), where we said: "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but `[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." (Citations omitted.) Because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyrigh

A transcript from 2005 of the notorious Bill O'Reilly and his guest who discuss the remix

Lessig is interviewed about Remix Culture, the Creative Commons, and his opinion of copyright law. He basically claims that copyright law is out of date with technology and the needs of society. He specifically references the Kahle v Ashcroft(2003) case and MGM vs Grokster(2005).

What does it mean for something to be free on the marketplace and how can it be turned around for profit? A la remix, can songs/videos that are available for free be an entry point (freemium) for the purchasing of more content? And is this a valid business model in today's digital economy?

i think this is worthy of a discussion. songs are "consumed" and apps are iterative and used.

This trailer is a little dated, but seems to run pretty parallel to all of our class discussion.