Blog #9

This directly correlates to our readings about information and how it is depicted to audiences. This game's trailer is just one of many trailers today that you see depicted to the audiences that will be most likely to go for the game. They also ploy the girl gamer by showing in game that the game will have female characters for the first time in the franchise! This game is AWESOME!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?  

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.