Vinyl Pop Internet Studies

Trolling

2011-12-15T19:52:00.001-08:00

Click Here to view our project video on trolling

Screencast on the subject of Good Reads

2011-10-26T14:37:00.001-07:00

Click Me

Revised Remixing Good Reads for the Better

2011-10-25T08:50:00.000-07:00

Charlie Mitchell

10/25/11

Internet Studies

Remixing Good Reads for the Better

The most elementary purpose of education today, is to teach students how to read, listen, and write. Children are encouraged to use these tools to create something original and creative. As a whole, Children learning these new tools are completely ignorant to the copy right laws in the United States. Let’s just say ignorance is bliss. They are not taught, according to the law, it is illegal to draw their favorite cartoon character, or record their own version of their favorite song. It isn’t until their high school years that they are taught about copyright. Today’s youth in high school are also well acquainted with current technology and can easily create and/or remix videos, music, literature and any other art that is applicable to copyright law. They learn that building upon our culture is forbidden and anyone who uses technology to remix work is a criminal. Do you like a song that you believe you can make better? Well if you attempt to do this, you are breaking the law. Copy right law is important to maintain for it credits accomplished artists, but needs to be reformed so not to define our youth as criminals.

Current copyright law discourages the Read/Write culture. Lawrence Lessig, author of Remix, defines the Read/Write culture explaining, “Ordinary citizen ‘read’ their culture by listening to it or by reading representation of it. This reading, however, is not enough. Instead, they add to the culture they read by creating and re-creating the culture around them” (28). The technology today enables us to remix our culture by taking clips from our favorite movies, songs, and books and creating something completing different and original. Unfortunately, US copyright law has not evolved as quickly as technology has, and makes these creative works illegal.

If reading is a hobby of yours, then the social media site, Good Reads is for you. Good Reads has a database of books, from all genres, that have been reviewed by its users. Basically, the site allows its users to review books they have read and recommend ones they liked to their friends. When you have created a library of books that you have reviewed, the site will recommend other books that people with similar tastes have enjoyed. Good Reads is a great site to chat with others who have a passion for reading, and discover new books that you may have not heard of otherwise. The site has around three million members and eighty-million books added to the site and continues to grow.

The site Good Reads, seems extremely aware of the current copyright law. The creators of the site seem to follow current copyright regulations and know they cannot copy other people’s work, and then pass it on to its users, like Google Books has done. Instead, they work with the authors by promoting their works on their site. Good Reads only gives its users a short description of the books stored on their site. The rest is up to the members. They can then review and comment on the books, which will then be passed on to other users. Books that may have gone unnoticed otherwise are now standing out on Good Reads. Authors and publishers should have a positive attitude towards this site and think of it as free promotion. If the site continues these trends, they will never get in trouble with copyright. Publishers will not make the same mistake as Warner Brothers did when they tried to sue and threaten children for contributing their own offshoots of the popular children’s series, Harry Potter.

A young teenager and Harry Potter fanatic named, Heather Lawver, created a social media site, The Daily Prophet, which allowed people to send in stories involving the Harry Potter franchise. The site encourages the Reader/Writer culture and the creativity that is enveloped in the concept. When Warner, J.K. Rowling’s publisher, heard of this, they attempted to police it by sending out letters to the contributors, threatening to sue them for copyright violation. Lawver was informed about these letters and organized a boycott of all Harry Potter products, gaining the attention of the media. “The teen debated Warner Bros. representatives on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Newspapers around the world started picking up on the fight” (Lessig 207). The two parties settled the matter and Warner Bros. began to realize that they were threatening their fans who were purchasing Harry Potter products. Warner Brothers has now changed their attitude and encourages fans to form a community to discuss their interests.

Good Reads embraces the idea of a hybrid economy. The site doesn’t charge any money for people to become members, but they do make money from advertising and investors. They are successful in doing this because they understand what Lessig believes is the only way hybrid economies can survive; they created a community for the users to control. Lessig gives us three steps to creating a successful online community. “First, you must give the community ‘respect.’ Second, you must give ‘responsibility…’ Third…you have to ‘give people a sense of being part of something that has meaning’” (Lessig 184-5). Good Reads accomplishes this by giving its users the respect and responsibility to write reviews, create groups, comment, and have their own page, which gives them a reason or meaning to continue to be a part of the Good Reads’ community.

In the book Remix, Lessig gives his readers five changes to the copyright law that would reform the law for the better. Three of these changes would specifically benefit the social media site, Good Reads. First, is Lessig’s belief that we need to deregulate amateur creativity. By deregulating, Lessig means, “exempting ‘noncommercial’ uses from the scope of the rights granted by copyright” (254). This would allow users of Good Reads to create groups where they would share their own sequels to their favorite books, or write an alternative version. Like in the Harry Potter example I gave, this just allows the fans of a book to be creative and have fun with their favorite works. This would only help the author, not hurt. Lessig’s second reform is a notion of a clear title in the copyright process. Currently, when someone publishes a work it is automatically protected under copyright law for the next 75 years, after the creator has deceased. This means that there are books that were written a hundred years ago and all out of print that people still can’t remake or remix. In fact, the vast majority of books protected under copyright law are currently out of print. By creating a new system, where only works making a commercial profit are protected under copyright, people could build on artists’ past work and potentially make it better. Forgotten novels could be turned into epic movies or television. In other words, users of Good Reads could participate even more by recreating past works and collaborating to make the story even stronger. The third change Lessig wants is to simplify copyright law. With today’s technology, everyone has the ability to create videos, music and pictures. The problem is that copyright law has not adapted to this progression. Lessing explains, “We thus have a system of technology that invites our kids to be creative. Yet a system of law prevents them from creating legally” (266). Children today are born in a culture where the majority of people are breaking the law in one way or another. Breaking these laws have become an accepted standard and are not looked down upon because of their minor potential repercussions. By simplifying copyright law, users of social media sites like Good Reads, will be able to easily understand what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Even though Good Reads isn’t participating in the remix culture of taking people’s work and building on it, they are still contributing in the progression of copyright change. The site shows us that by allowing people to talk about someone else’s work, you are only helping the publishers and writers. In no way, can Good Reads take away some of the commercial value of these books, but instead they are doing the opposite. By allowing a large community, with similar tastes, to think critically and discuss certain books, you are allowing others to join in the conversation, making the commercial value of these books much greater. Hopefully in the future, Good Reads can expand its site, allowing the users to remix past works, thus creating a true free society.

Work Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2008.

Remixing Good Reads for the Better

2011-10-11T07:20:00.000-07:00

Current copyright law discourages the Reader/Writer culture. Lawrence Lessig, author of Remix, defines the Reader/Writer culture explaining, “Ordinary citizen ‘read’ their culture by listening to it or by reading representation of it. This reading, however, is not enough. Instead, they add to the culture they read by creating and re-creating the culture around them” (28). The technology today enables us to remix our culture by taking clips from our favorite movies, songs, and books and creating something completing different and original. Unfortunately, US copyright law has not evolved as quickly as technology has, and makes these creative works illegal.

If reading is a hobby of yours, then the social media site, Good Reads is for you. Basically, the site allows its users to review books they have read and recommend ones they liked to their friends. When you have created a library of books that you have reviewed, the site will recommend other books that people with similar tastes have enjoyed. Good Reads is a great site to chat with others who have a passion for reading, and discover new books that you may have not heard of otherwise. The site has around three million members and eighty-million books added to the site.

The site Good Reads, seems extremely aware of the current copyright law. They know they cannot copy other people’s work, and then pass it on to its users, like Google Books has done. Instead, they work with the authors by promoting their works on their site. Good Reads only gives its users a short description of the books stored on their site. The rest is up to the members. They can then review and comment on the books, which will then be passed on to other users. Books that may have gone unnoticed otherwise are now standing out on Good Reads. Authors and publishers should have a positive attitude towards this site and think of it as free promotion. This is why, I believe, Good Reads will never get in trouble with copyright. Publishers will not make the same mistake as Warner Brothers did when they tried to sue and threaten children for contributing their own offshoots of the popular children’s series, Harry Potter.

A young teenager and Harry Potter fanatic named, Heather Lawver, created a social media site, The Daily Prophet, that allowed people to send in stories involving the Harry Potter franchise. This site encourages the Reader/Writer culture and the creativity that is enveloped in the concept. When Warner, J.K. Rowling’s publisher, heard of this, they attempted to police it by sending out letters to the contributors, threatening to sue them for copyright violation. Lawver was informed about these letters and organized a boycott of all Harry Potter products, gaining the attention of the media. “The teen debated Warner Bros. representatives on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. Newspapers around the world started picking up on the fight” (Lessig 207). The two parties settled the matter and Warner Bros. began to realize that they were threatening their fans who were purchasing Harry Potter products. Warner Brothers has now changed their attitude and encourages fans to form a community to discuss their interests.

In the book Remix, Lessig gives his readers five changes to the copyright, that would reform the law for the better. Three of these changes would specifically benefit the social media site, Good Reads. First, is Lessig’s belief that we need to deregulate amateur creativity. By deregulating, Lessig means, “exempting ‘noncommercial’ uses from the scope of the rights granted by copyright” (254). This would allow users of Good Reads to create groups where they would share their own sequels to their favorite books, or write an alternative version. Like in the Harry Potter example I gave, this just allows the fans of a book to be creative and have fun with their favorite works. This would only help the author, not hurt. Lessig’s second reform is a notion of a clear title in the copyright process. Currently, when someone publishes a work, it is automatically protected under copyright law for the next 75 years, after the creator has deceased. This means that there are books that were written a hundred years ago and all out of print that people still can’t remake or remix. In fact, the vast majority of books protected under copyright law are currently out of print. By creating a new system, where only works making a commercial profit are protected under copyright, people could build on people’s past work and make it better. In other words, users of Good Reads could participate even more by recreating past works and collaborating to make the story even stronger. The third change Lessig wants is to simplify copyright law. With today’s technology, everyone has the ability to create videos, music and pictures. The problem is that copyright law has not adopted to this progression. Lessing explains, “We thus have a system of technology that invites our kids to be creative. Yet a system of law prevents them from creating legally” (266). By simplifying copyright law, users of social media sites like Good Reads, will be able to easily understand what is allowed and what is prohibited.

Work Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2008.

Link to Revised Paper

2011-09-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

Click This!

Charlie

My Ugly Page

2011-09-20T10:51:00.000-07:00

Hey,

Check out my ugly page.

www.appstate.edu/~mitchellct/uglypage.htm

Internet-Worship Assignment #1

2011-09-07T20:09:00.000-07:00

It is almost comical that we have to decide whether Vannevar Bush, a great scientist and engineer of his time (born in 1890), or Nathanial Hawthorne, a great writer and complainer (born in 1804), predicted the social implications of the internet better. What is even more hilarious and confusing is that I actually agree with Hawthorne and his dreary outlook on the future. This essay will give you a quick overlook of my early run into the internet and why I believe Hawthorne’s predictions are more relative.

I only remember small pieces of my first encounters with the internet and computer. When I opened the door of my older brother’s room, there lied on his desk a large and heavy white monitor with a long vertical computer underneath it. When you pushed the large power button on the computer it would hiss at you with alien clicking noises as the monitor displayed big green lettering as it loaded. Playing the game “Myst” is the only really vivid memory I have from that computer. “Myst” was a first-person click through puzzle game. I remember for some reason being scared shitless from this game. I am not sure how old I was at the time, but it was before my family had internet.

I was at the peak of my immaturity (age 12 or so) when I really started using the internet. I’m sure some people were using the internet to learn and converse with other fellow intellects, but it was a different story for me. Vannevar Bush would be rolling in his grave if he knew how I was using this great new technology. Instead of using it for research, like the program memex suggested, I used the internet to play hokey games, watch videos of people embarrassing and/or hurting themselves, chat with friends on AIM and partake in other juvenile activities.

Of course there was no such thing as high-speed internet at the time. There was a long waiting process to use the internet. Connecting to dial-up was so painful; watching the icon of a dot going back-and-forth between a picture of a phone and the earth as the computer made crackling and crashing noises. After this you would have to wait for the webpage to load. I created a method of counting down a certain amount of seconds in my head, trying to predict how long it would take to load, to pass the time. I would sometimes slam my fists on my parents’ desk if it took too long. I actually blame the internet for my extreme lack of patience.

Hawthorne could have used me as an example for the destruction technology is causing. Instead of using my free time to engage in intellectual discourse with my family and friends, I would sit with my neighbor in his parents’ study, looking at funny videos or downloading illegal music. The internet even at that time was full of possibilities and options. It was the decision of the user to either use it for research and intellectual chat with fellow enthusiasts or use it to kill time and have a laugh or two. My middle school would have us use computers to learn how to type formally. When my teachers would watch me I would pretend to be engaged in typing, but when they looked away I would resort to using two fingers to complete the assignments then play computer games if there was time left. I would actually attribute AIM for learning how to type properly.

“It is my belief, that social intercourse cannot long continue what it has been, now that we have subtracted from it so important and vivifying an element as fire-light” (Hawthorne). I would love if Hawthorne could see our current society and write an essay (or rant) on its shortcomings and deadly faults. No more is the fire place where people converse to stay warm. I would say TV and dinner are the new fire-places, but the internet does not offer any personal sociable discourse. No one gathers around the internet to learn and discover new things. The internet is a very personal thing. It almost sucks you in to a point where you don’t even bother talking to others face to face. When I got home from middle school, I probably talked more with my friends using AIM then I did telling my parents what I did in school that day. The internet can be used for great things, but I feel it is abused more than anything. It is hard to find a young adult reading a book, or just shooting the shit with friends. The internet has numbed our generation so much that it is easier to communicate with fingers than it is with our own voices. A great visionary and a great pessimist like Hawthorne brought up many good points of how technology is destroying discourse which can lead to even greater consequences.

Work Cited

Nathaniel Hawthorne. "Fire-Worship, from Mosses from an Old Manse, 1854." Eldritch Press. Web. 07 Sept. 2011. <http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/fw.html>.

Charlie's Internet Studies Blog

2011-08-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

Welcome! This is a blog.