Group items tagged

The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer. "...ACCORDING TO ITS PRODUCER." Is this a realistic scenario? Perhaps an attempt to provoke offers or start a bidding war for US distribution rights for this film?

This article highlights the lack of media literacy education in Canada and the need for it. It recaps Canada's 4th annual Media Literacy Week, recounting the calls for improved economic education in this area. In an age where digital media is all around us, this makes a lot of sense for the youth population of Canada who commonly use and create the most digital media. Canadian Teacher's Fund President Mary-Lou Donnelly put it best by saying, "Media and digital literacy are life skills that should be included in the curriculum along with traditional literacy and numeracy skills. Students are not simply users but creators of media. As teachers, we must nurture this creativity while helping them to be engaged and responsible e-citizens." Media literacy education is definitely an important initiative and the fact that Canada is moving to integrate it into its education system is a good sign.

Delhi's new WIP st+art project is yet another step towards empowering the society via art. How far are we succeeding in this mission? Check out this link and leave us your views…

Sci-fi marries architecture in this bizzaire environment where designer Steven Rude brings to life the spaces we see only on screens. Check out this crazy home and leave us your views…

This commercial uses two terms from the language of persuasion. It uses simple solutions by saying just with this one product your hair will instantly go from laying flat to looking fabulous. The commercial tries to make it sound so easy that anyone can use this product. These commercial also uses bribery, by throwing in extras for "free".

Washington: Oct 21, 2010.This article, written by Eliza Krigman published in the Congress Daily/P.M. Krigman is an education reporter for top political and public policy magazines she is based in the UK. This article discusses how currently rights holders of companies and many government leaders are determined to crack down on Internet piracy through stricter enforcement. Public-interest groups argue that such rules can jeopardize free speech, particularly in countries without the types of safeguard measures found in American law and are angry. The possibility of using copyright law to justify censorship drew attention recently when the New York Times exposed how the Russian government used Microsoft to suppress political dissidents. This issue is very relevant to everyone whether you are a right's holder or user or a copyrighted products. LINK:http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/ip-enforcement-policies-stir-c.php

Date Issued - June 26, 2006. This article is about Creative Commons and how people are trying to enforce it so that artists don't necessarily have to sign off on having their work as being copyright. Larry Rohter (the author) is a journalist who was a South American bureau chief of the New York Times but was originally born in Illinois. Rohter is for Creative Commons because everyone he quotes in his article supports this new idea. This article shows the good side of Creative Commons and how much of an advantage it could be for artists who like to make remix's, or use other artists work for a different type of art.

This article is about creative commons, and how music artists are starting to prefer it over traditional copyright. Artists such as "Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia" released their new single under creative commons, and encouraged people to copy it, mix it, criticize it and other things. Now the song has been incorporated into new types of music and videos, and every time those are viewed, it links back to the original artist, giving them immediate popularity. Once other artists saw how this was giving the band more fans, they started releasing their songs under creative commons as well. Copyright laws provide limited flexibility, and make it harder for artists to get as many fans as they would if they released their songs under Creative Commons. Artists and authors have been saying that creative commons allows others to "build upon their creativity -- without calling a lawyer first." Now, artists are making half of their money off downloads and the other half off licensing fees. However, while many artists and authors are starting to release their work under creative commons, others like major movie studios or record labels will not, because they already make plenty of money off the current traditional copyright system.

Creative Commons licenses are changing the media sharing environment of the internet. When people share media with a creative commons label, anybody is allowed to download, upload, and share it for free. This is good for artists who want to grow their fan bases, but bad for companies who are looking to profit from their work.

In the USA, intellectual piracy laws outlaw piracy of goods from all forms of the market, from medical to the watch industry. This helps prevent the origenal producers of drugs and products from losesing billions on the market. China does not have such laws, allowing for piracy of everything from Viagra to Rolex, causing companies to lose billions

China does not have these laws primarily because under communism, there is no privet property, including ideas. This allows for easy bootlegging of products, and when this involves drugs such as Viagra, it endangers the lives of the people using the bootlegged drug, because there has not necessarily been the same testing of the bootlegged drug as there is on the drug made by the company. Intellectual property laws ensure quality within a product.

EDIT: The above link doesn't direct to the proper page. Try this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html?_r=2 This article is from the New York Times, written by Claire Cain Miller and published on September 2nd, 2010. It discusses how copyrighted work is dealt with on YouTube, a video-viewing website currently owned by Google. A system called Contend ID is used to recognize videos/music that match up to material provided by copyright owners. Said owners can decide if the content should be taken down or left up. For example, someone uploaded a clip of Mad Men, a show owned by Lion's Gate. The clip was not taken down, because the revenue gotten from the advertisements surrounding the clip was enough to convince the copyright holders that leaving the video up was beneficial. This is because the money made off of YouTube ads is split between Google and the owner of the copyright, so both sides profit, legally.

Date issued: April 17th, 2009. This article from wired.com by David Kravets deals with a lawsuit filed by students against turnitin.com. The students claimed this website was breaching the copyrights the students owned for the essays they wrote. There was a countersuit filed against one of the students accusing because the student in question was already cheating the essays he was writing. This article discusses the problem of whether your work is really yours and is just another step in the process of trying to make rules to govern the internet.

In July of 2010, Paul Ceglia sued the owner and founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, saying that he was the rightful owner of 85% of Facebook. His said that he loaned Zuckerberg $1000 so that he could start the company Facebook. The reason that this is going to court is that there is debate over what website the money that Zuckerberg recieved was used to build. During that time, Zuckerberg also built a website about job advertising. Ceglia claims that his money went to both sites, while Zuckerberg says that it only went to the advertising website. This lawsuit shows that copyright laws extend far beyond direct copying of other peoples ideas and property. This is a case that emphasizes how difficult it can be determining the winner in cases like these.

Computers are now making it easier to find and quote unpublished sources without citing them, and this is a huge conflict. People are in dispute about the existing copyright laws because they think that there are still ways to freely quote things that aren't yours because of the internet. A copyright amendment was passed in 1979 to try to address this problem. It has become a bigger problem since the internet has taken off. Several cases about this issue are being brought to the supreme court, and they declined them. Freidman says that the court inpterpreted the amendment to mean an author cannot quote more than 50 words of unpublished material without citing.

This article is about how there are many ways that people are trying to stream music, movies, and television shows through the internet. These are legal or illegal depending on the location of the computer based on the countries piracy laws and on the contracts that the media streaming company makes with publishers/recording companies/etc. since they are trying to do this in a legal fashion. In some European companies, they are streaming music via a new service, Spotify, where subscribers can listen to music for free with advertisements, or pay short of 5 pounds for ad-free streaming. However, due to contractual disagreement, Spotify is not available in USA but they are in fact trying to bring this cheaper (but legal) music service to the Americans which could abruptly change the music industry as well as bring turmoil to services like iTunes.

I googled Media and Culture and this is the first thing that came up. It's a book that teaches about mass communication.

Good Work! We have this book if you want to borrow it. It's also all available online.

GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took a Wednesday morning tour of the podium at the Republican National Convention, hours before she'll return to give what will be the most scrutinized speech of her career.

"Where once morality and meaning were available as part of our free cultural inheritance, now corporations sell them to us as products." "This is basically the commercial exploitation of spirituality," he says, adding that as a result Disney and other corporations "inhabit our imagination".

"Jersey Shore," the MTV reality show that claims to lift the veil over "one of the Tri-state area's most misunderstood species … the GUIDO" (as per its press materials), is offensive to Italian-Americans and shouldn't air, says Andre Dimino, the president of UNICO, the national Italian-American service organization based in Fairfield.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/11/jersey_shore_offends_italian-a.html This article sets out trying to defend MTV's newest show, Jersey Shore by supplying 5 redeeming qualities. The author can only think of four! The first being, the Jersey shore is not actually that interesting and this portrayal will attract a lot of teenagers and young adults looking for the fun times shown on the program, boosting Jersey Shore's tourism rates and their economy. Two: this show will kill off the show "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," a show that the author apparently dislikes more than Jersey Shore. Three: young people need bad examples to learn what not to do. And four: Now we can shut down all the things that led to the Actors stupidity and bad judgments like the schools they frequented.

In this article they are not talking a lot about the plot and setting about Jersey Shore. Rather, they are talking about the word guido and the stereotype this show is making. This article is saying that the word guido is a word that is very offensive to all Italian Americans. They say the word guido is a very offensive word for Italian Americans and they are shocked by how MTV is using it like it means nothing on network television. The article definitely has a point because the word guido is a very demeaning word for Italian Americans. The article talks about how the word guido is not the term you could usually call someone and pretend it's not a big deal. They say that because of the show Jersey Shore, it is a much more common word and it is making the population of young Italian Americans look bad.