Group items tagged

Wow, we could probably spend loads of time on just this one issue!

In between the Dr Pepper, Doritos and Bud Light commercials airing during the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, one first-time advertiser will be pushing God's product line. Focus on the Family will air a 30-second "life- and family-affirming" television spot, featuring University of Florida star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, during the coverage.

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.

WNYC Radio - Sound Check Show. Date Broadcasted: January 11 2011. Genre: Music. New York Times chief classical music critic Anthony Tommasini recently embarked on an ambitious project … to compile a list of the 10 greatest composers in the history of classical music. He joins us to talk about the criteria he's using -- and about the risks and rewards of creating such a list.

There's Alex Jones and there's Jason Jones. The two unrelated ­Joneses offer competing commentaries on journalism in our times.

Jorge Colombo drew this week's cover using Brushes, an application for the iPhone, while standing for an hour outside Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in Times Square.

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

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.

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.

"I can't afford to pay any amount. It's not a matter of won't, it's a matter of I can't." In Minnesota, this is the response that Jammie Thomas-Rasset made about paying 1.5 million dollars for the illegal sharing of music online. Each of the 24 songs that she illegally violated copyrights on is $62,500. Her defense is that she can't afford to pay that kind of money, especially since she is the mother of four children. Sharing over 1,700 songs on Kazaa, a file-sharing site, the Recording Industry of America, on numerous occasions, had tried to settle with the woman at $5,000. The stubborn Thomas-Rasset refused and was criticized for not taking responsibility for her actions. Due to all these problems, Jammie was taken on trial and was proven guilty. Jammie persistently denies her use of Kazaa and is willing to keep fighting. Many people are in the same position as Jammie, and as the saying goes, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

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.

Slideshow of images from this new technology. Somewhat like the photoshop site we looked at in class, this innovation can show you a theoretically more attractive version of yourself.

Controllers of the Media Good list with descriptions

The Disney curse strikes again