Friday, November 8, 2013
Blog #9
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Blog #8
You ever wonder why making the
first movie or the first book of a large series is always the most expensive?
So did Stiglitz, he was interested in the cost of things, and the patterns
associated with those costs. While the counterpart here Shapiro and Varian were
interested in how that technology worked behind the scenes. These authors all
brought up very good points but they didn't predict everything. The things they
did predict well were the death of Netscape. This was an internet browsing
program that was popular in the 90's but fell apart because of Microsoft and
that prediction that Shapiro and Varian made.
The next
thing that they talked about mostly was that the death of new programs would
come about only because cost of product would continue to rise. This is a major
problem in the long run because you can look today at adobe products and see,
that people will still buy things for ungodly prices. They predicted that the
industry would crash because consumers wouldn't want to buy the expensive
product when they could get the same thing with the less expensive product.
Another thing they didn't predict was
social media sites. They didn't mention the new idea of using the programs that
people had created to connect people or the idea that with this connection it
would drive people to get things that others already had just by providing
massive amounts of space for people to advertise the programs. Another example
is mobile phones. This isn't classically seen as a product but rather a
necessity now by many of those that are our age, without your phone people feel
lost and feel like they just don’t fit in.
Although
all of that being said I would have to side with Shapiro and Varian, that the
industry will crash eventually because technology is getting so expensive. The
real reason I think this is because there are so many free versions of software
out there now that people can do basically the same thing that the high end
gadgets do on something that was free. I feel like their prediction is bound to
come true eventually, but Stiglitz was more on the ball with the closer future
than they were.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Blog #7
RiP: A Remix Manifesto from Laurent LaSalle on Vimeo.
This video is a large part of our class and also brings up the remix video that we watched for class earlier in the semester. It also brings up the large points of Artists being paid for their sounds and how publishers or copyright holders reap all the benefits.
The video in a nut shell is our class, and describes pretty much everything we have gone over within the past few weeks.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Blog #6
Interesting to is
something that spikes curiosity, something that contains interest to people by
bringing in their eye. Sort of like an art piece where to really know what the
artist or author is doing you have to take a second look, and look deeper into
the meanings behind what was said. This same concept is essential in student
works in the same way because students need that double take most of the time
to get the point they are trying to make across.
To a teacher I could
see why you think most of our projects aren't interesting. You have seen it
all, you have seen failed attempts to make a project interesting and just
through the years you have taught you have seen so many duplicates that nothing
may seem interesting. The fun fact of it all is that the students have to think
outside the box. We have to think abstractly how to get the information we want
across to you and then we have to change how the information is perceived.
As a DTC major I
think making a project interesting is taking information that is clearly
against your point and spinning it or remixing it so that it is completely and
utterly agreeing with your main points. A good example would be taking a news
station that is clearly one side of the political spectrum and using what we
know and the abilities we have to transform it into the other sides view point
completely and without odd pauses or choppy breaks. This would be an excellent
idea for a project.
The worst idea
for us as students to do as a project would be a simple hey I looked up this
piece and yeah this is what they said. Or to Copy an idea completely this would
be a work that shows that the student doesn't care about being interesting or notable.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Blog #5
The passage is interesting and difficult, only because when Geick
brings up other sources as references he doesn’t always give them due credit.
In the passage it was more so confusing because he didn’t make the people he
was talking about very clear. This is challenging because he’s stating some
really good facts but because we don’t know exactly who he is talking about all
the time it becomes hard to give the proper credit to the author. Which brings
us to the copyright laws we are discussing in class and how people want credit
for their work but now can receive only partial credit for the hard work they
have done.
As a different trade that needed or wanted credit for my
work like a designer, an artist, a videographer, a musician, etc. I would try
to solve this problem by some what creating another problem. I would solve the
problem by making my works free online for people to use and give them all
permissions for using my intellectual property. This would create another
problem however that even though im giving all my work away someone could try
to make the work their own by not giving credit and saying that it was their
piece originally. My way would be a very trusting way and a way to give to the
public so that creative minds could share the wealth and become stronger.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Blog #3
In general I think
what we have seen in culture today that major cooperation’s and even smaller cooperation’s
control what we see, which limits the intellectual property operating today.
This being said our generation is negatively affected by these companies and
harms the creation process that we already are limited on.
In
the reading Lesig generalizes that technology and intellectual property is
being controlled too much. He states that Television stations have a general
policy. This policy being that they control what goes on the Screen and the
things that go on the screen are either shows or advertising. The companies can
control what a viewer sees. This becomes a problem because they really control what
the nation thinks. Similar to the scenario of; if you follow one station you
will only see things that relate to your view point or opinion, this perfectly
relates to politics and how some channels are republican and some are democrat.
The other point
of harm would be that the laws on intellectual copyright strangling those
creative individuals that could do great things but because they are limited by
law, wont dare touch things that are from major cooperation’s or anything like
that. What happens instead is that because the tight hold of intellectual
property we are destroying the chance our future generations creators have.
In conclusion I’m
wrapping up with my personal favorite motto, which I got from an old teacher. For
context I play a lot of music and jazz. But if you know anything about jazz its
all about improvisation and to be honest the greats didn't just make shit up.
They copied little bits and pieces from the other musicians that were doing
great stuff and made even better things together, similar to the re-mixers of
today taking these songs and creating new things with them together and adding
in their own “voice”. My teacher would always say that copying is the highest
form of flattery and I believe it’s true. If was a famous musician, I would be
thrilled to know people were copying my beats and using them to create their own
songs.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Blog #2
I think Lessig has some really
good points in the passage we read this last weekend. Those points being that
the booksellers or publishers as we know of them today, were creating
monopolies because of all the so called “Creative Material” that they owned; which
in their case was the material from authors that worked hard to create those
stories. I found this very interesting because how is what they did there;
profiting from material they had no right to other than buying the original
from the author and providing a small cut to the original author, different
from how re-mixers do things today.
I
guess what I’m saying is yes remixing takes skill, it takes musical genius to
mix those songs into something that becomes a new thing all together but in the
end the argument is still did they have the right to use that material. Did
they create anything themselves other than a sometimes shot in the dark of two
songs being mixed together? Then what does the original artist have to see for their
hard work. As the video on Friday, Copyright
Criminals (2009), brought up with the drummer that most of the remixing
population uses “Where is his credit or an acknowledgement of ‘Thank you for
your beats’”?
But
bringing back to the text I see how the error then with the booksellers applies
to now, as the publishers or music record labels say “The song is my property”.
How is the song their property and in this fact I agree with Lessig that these
industries don’t care about the author of the piece of music or the book, they
care about losing money and staying in control of the material. It’s an overall
scheme that the industry runs and it’s disturbing that they get away with what
they do on a daily basis and make millions doing so.
So really shouldn't the right of the song be
placed in the Artists hands, or to the band that created the album, what do
they see from the album in the long run other than a short “Hey thanks for
making us a crap ton of money, here is your % cut”. Where does the line get
drawn on copyright is my question, where should the line get drawn for those
that had no part in creating the music or book in the profit from the selling
of that creative material?
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Blog #1
Today I’m asked to provide an
answer to the question of; what examples I've seen personally of people
tinkering, or known as the “right to tinker”? This is a difficult question to
answer because people are able to only do what the technology allows them in
the Digital Technology and Culture major. This major is more specific to the
Graphic designers, Web Designers, and creative people of technology. I think
the real question we should be asking is; what are the limitations of
technology on the creativeness of one designer?
To answer
my question I would be tempted to point out that for all DTC majors Web Design
is a large portion of what we do. We design things for web pages or to be seen
in a digital medium. The problem with web design is that no matter what you do
the code is always a limitation and doesn't provide people the freedom to
tinker. In a way they can tinker with the code but because of the limitations
they are only able to tinker with what is available on hand to try to create
something more, out of the limited script they have. However this is still
considered tinkering because people are finding easier ways to do things
through code every day, or finding a new way to do something that makes it
better or easier, only because code is constantly evolving to the user base.
Then you
have graphic designers who also have limitations creatively because their
technology is limited. There are only so many graphic programs that designers
can use these days, and much of the time people to stick to the same programs.
Adobe Photoshop in itself was a limitation to graphic designers all over
because of the price and the recent changes and makings of the adobe cloud make
it more affordable and less of a limitation. But that being said the program
itself is limiting to the designers that do work in it only because you can
only do so much with Photoshop. Photoshop has its limits and they are clearly
defined. But there are still ways that people in the DTC major can tinker with
it to create some masterpieces.
This is a
major problem with those that are creatively inclined to do work on the
computer because the computer itself is limited just as artists on any other
medium are limited. However I feel that artists on other mediums aren't limited
as those that are using a computer. On paper there are always ways to create
something new, or there are always new mediums that people create to make art
on. But in the end I don’t think that the problem or the issue is the
constraint applied to people from the “right to tinker” but I feel more like
the limitations come from the medium people choose to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)