Tuesday, April 19, 2011

blog 12

In the section Crossovers Are Growing goes into examples on creative common works also moving into a commercial economy. I found this to be similar to Girl Talk. Girl Talk is free to the public, not only to download the music but also to remix. This is similar to the movie because through Girl Talks freedom to use his music he has also entered a commercial economy by touring and becoming a well know remix artist. “But the licenses also helped them cross over to a commercial economy.” (Lessig pg. 228). I feel as if this also helped Girl Talk.

“An extraordinary range of diverse culture could be accessible, cheaply, anytime and anywhere.” (Lessig pg. 252). With RW people use past culture to create new culture. With technology we are able to easily find older culture and create new. Just like Girl Talk does. He uses his computer and a range of programs to create totally new music and then puts it on the Internet for anyone to download at anytime. That is to say if they have Internet access.

“Copyright law must be changed. Changed, not abolished.” (Lessig pg. 253). Throught the entire movie I couldn’t help but this this. That copyright laws shouldn’t be a worry for parents or artist such as Girl Talk. At a certain point what Girl Talk and other artist like Girl Talk creates is not stealing but creating. It does not try to be the original and there for should not be accounted as such. Copyright laws need to be altered to properly protect the people and their artwork. Not bring worry about being sued for expression ones self.

Monday, April 4, 2011

blog #11

Lessig goes into exploring how there are two economies. There is commercial and sharing economy. This is interesting because I never thought about how there are two ways to receive and get items. Commercial economy is where someone would receive an item by paying for it. The exchange for an item for money, this is easy to grasp because I do this everyday. However, sharing is quite different. You could receive something by just your word, or a “promise”.

As I read on Lessig explains how the Internet is becoming a blend of both. For example Amazon, it not only asks something of its users it also is sharing. However, Google does not ask anything of there users and gives something to them. A cool thing I hadn’t thought of was that Google keeps your searches on hand. So Google is giving a service to it’s users. Amazon does the same thing by suggesting things you may like by what you search and buy. The Internet now gives people something they can’t find anywhere else. I was thinking about why I don’t shop in real life but do most of my shopping online. Because it gives me as a buyer something stores can’t. It remembers me. This isn’t true for all sites though, but for Amazon it suggests things I would like—and yes I usually do like them. Overall Lessig is explaining how these two economies are blended on the Internet and in essence creating something entirely new.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

blog #10


I thought it was important for a remix to be identified and still be relatable. I like this remix because it changes the mood of the song for me. It has a more uplifting beat and at times overlooks the lyrics—which I like.

The notion that we are going to remix items no matter what. That recreation is happening and will continue to happen has been really interesting to me. I started thinking about this more and then came to this revelation on pg. 50, “The act is the same: only the source is different.” (Lessig). The act of citing work will be the same—using of others people words or art will be the same the difference is how to cite. To properly give people credit. I think this goes with not only my remix but all remixes. The way we get our information is different but the info is the same. With a remix we are creating our culture and new art.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Blog #9

I believe Lessig’s key argument within the introduction is to showcase how everyday moments have become apart of the corporate world. That simple cultural actions, ie. Sharing home videos, has become a copyright issue now that a third party has entered the mix of this cultural documentation. The third party being technology, the Internet or for this example, Youtube. That recreating and using other peoples work is so embedded within our culture we do not think twice about
“properly” giving people credit.

“RW” stands for Read/Write and “RO” stands for Read/Only. This at first confused me I had to read it twice. Read/Write, we base our culture not only by “reading” it but also “writing” it—or recreating what we have read. This RW keeps us, nonprofessionals, giving back and in essences creating our culture. While RO, read only, only has us focusing our culture on professional work. We lose the creativity of nonprofessionals, we lose recreation is some way. This matters to Lessig’s argument because this is what the mother in her example did. She recreated, a nonprofessional making something creative and sharing it; which in turn is creating to our culture.

I believe Lessig uses Sousa because Sousa feared RO. Only having RO would lose the nonprofessional’s creativity. It goes back to the introduction. Without armatures creating as well, the copyright laws and lawsuits might actually have a foundation to stand on. It seems to me that it is ridiculous that home videos are being looked at closely by big companies.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

blog 8

“My challenge to myself is to always try to create new world, new scenarios at almost every moment of though. The transaction I speak of take me outside of the normal cash flow of role playing because it’s multiple. Into the picture, into the frame—that’s the name of the game.” (pg. 109) I liked this quote because I think it summed up everything I believe about blending music. “try to create new world” meaning that it is new and not copying. I find this important because of simply what we have been discussing and reading about. When there is a distinct difference between something new and original and simply stealing something from an artist and calling it your work—I am not sure it is as simple to define what that difference is. I was trying to think of that myself and all I could come up with is I don’t have the skills to articulate what makes something original. What I got out of it was I think “good” new music is original and “crap” is crap and it’s not even the new creators. That’s not much of a definition but there you go. “The path to knowledge doesn’t really have an end, you just realize that the road keeps going and, everything—information, the social networks that provide structure and sustain your inquiry into whatever you’re investigating—well, each is just a stop along the way.” (pg.118). I liked that the part that stated “the road keeps going” that the idea of creating and blending will be blurred with something new again because it will continue—like the road. We should just sit and enjoy the ride and see what new awesome creations are out there for us.

I picked 5 minutes by Feat. I enjoyed how it was different by speeding up the beat and adding a back beat. It sounds so “hip-hoppy” with the silent parts and bringing it back up. It is called a remix and I think it sounds amazing with cutting and then bringing the tempo back up to fast.

Monday, March 7, 2011

blog 7

In Marguerite de Bourgoing goes into describing seven practices of transmedia and how these seven practices effects hip hop. What I got from this reading overall was that technology is a huge stepping stone for hip hop. That this idea that a blog or social network shout out could at anytime generate a new fan. This is cool because there are so many blogs out there. For example Hype machine is an online radio station that suggests new blog and cool artist all the time.

As I read the law it basically was take action and make things your own. However the law I thought was most interesting was law six. Law six was all about the ladies!

With hip hop mostly being all guys, with the help and aid of technology hip hop is seeing more and more women. Basically what I got out of this was women are starting to realize the potential power and force they have in hip hop. Bourgoing later describes this female radio star who is from LA. Saying that she is huge and those hip hop artist haven’t made it if they aren’t on her show. This was a cool concept. A mostly male dominated environment that respects a women’s opinion.

In general how could Bourgoing not be connected to what we are talking about in class. I find music and visual art to be very similar. I create artwork by using others art. For example photoshop. This is just like music, like “Girltalk”. How can this not be considered art if the artist is making a new sound, sure they are taking already made art but they are recreating it to make something unique. In the beginning of class we spoke about how copy right laws need to be mended. I still believe they do because the times are changing and laws on art are getting blurred.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Blog #6

I think the main point that Jerkin is making is—why ban something from the classroom that is obviously growing with our communities and that has the potential to do great things. Why ban social networking sites, Wikipedia and Youtube when it offers so much towards a learning environment. I believe that this can be connected to what Weinberger believes that web 2.0 is miscellaneous, that information doesn’t have a set place anymore it is everywhere, that the web context can also be used for the same endless criteria. Web 2.0 allows multiple people to control what is going out into the digital world and what is not, in other words, who the “boss” is. This freedom can allow a child in school to create and market anything they want including tools and statements regarding classroom appropriate material.

As I can see the problem with allowing more freedom in the digital world in schools the more I think it is necessary to have it being taught. If this is apart of our culture and is apart of the world then it should be introduced to students to better have them prepared when they encounter it. Weinberger talks about how anyone can publish content on the internet and how information can reach anyone at anytime. I think this notion that “the average Joe” can in theory be heard is enlightening! I agree with Jerkin’s that this social networking should be allowed in schools. If for nothing more than the message it sends to kids. You can be heard and make a difference. I don’t understand why would exclude our youth from a valuable skill and a mind set that anyone’s voice is worth being heard.