Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
"Free Culture" Bits and Pieces
"If “piracy” means using the creative property of others without their permission—if “if value, then right” is true—then the history of the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of “big media” today—film, records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a kind of piracy so defined."
"The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates. Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls were exercised through a monopoly “trust,” the Motion Pictures Patents Company, and were based on Thomas Edison’s creative property—patents. Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave 54 him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded"
"Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement of federal law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the patent holder a truly “limited” monopoly (just seventeen years at that time), 55 by the time enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had expired. A new industry had been born, in part from the piracy of Edison’s creative property."
"The record industry was born of another kind of piracy, though to see how requires a bit of detail about the way the law regulates music.
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel’s 1899 hit “Happy Mose,” the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
But what if I wanted to record “Happy Mose,” using Edison’s phonograph or Fourneaux’s player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I would have to pay for any public performance of the work I was recording. But it wasn’t totally clear that I would have to pay for a “public performance” if I recorded the song in my own house (even today, you don’t owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in your brain are not—yet—regulated by copyright law). So if I simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home, it wasn’t clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn’t clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively pirate someone else’s song without paying its composer anything.
The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this 56 capacity to pirate"
"Radio was also born of piracy.
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a “public performance” of the composer’s work.12 As I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder) an exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy of the composer’s work. The radio station is also performing a copy of the recording artist’s work. It’s one thing to have “Happy Birthday” sung on the radio by the local children’s choir; it’s quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.
But 59 it doesn’t. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist’s work for free, even if it must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song."
"Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters’ 60 content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever did—Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to give away.
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of “unfair and potentially destructive competition.”"
"It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they “pirated.” In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it resolved the question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn’t exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus built their empire in part upon a “piracy” of the value created by broadcasters’ content."
"hese separate stories sing a common theme. If “piracy” means using value from someone else’s creative property without permission from that creator—as it is increasingly described today19—then every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. . . . The list is long and could well be expanded."
"The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates. Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls were exercised through a monopoly “trust,” the Motion Pictures Patents Company, and were based on Thomas Edison’s creative property—patents. Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave 54 him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded"
"Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement of federal law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the patent holder a truly “limited” monopoly (just seventeen years at that time), 55 by the time enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had expired. A new industry had been born, in part from the piracy of Edison’s creative property."
"The record industry was born of another kind of piracy, though to see how requires a bit of detail about the way the law regulates music.
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel’s 1899 hit “Happy Mose,” the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
But what if I wanted to record “Happy Mose,” using Edison’s phonograph or Fourneaux’s player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I would have to pay for any public performance of the work I was recording. But it wasn’t totally clear that I would have to pay for a “public performance” if I recorded the song in my own house (even today, you don’t owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in your brain are not—yet—regulated by copyright law). So if I simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home, it wasn’t clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn’t clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively pirate someone else’s song without paying its composer anything.
The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this 56 capacity to pirate"
"Radio was also born of piracy.
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a “public performance” of the composer’s work.12 As I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder) an exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy of the composer’s work. The radio station is also performing a copy of the recording artist’s work. It’s one thing to have “Happy Birthday” sung on the radio by the local children’s choir; it’s quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.
But 59 it doesn’t. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist’s work for free, even if it must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song."
"Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters’ 60 content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever did—Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to give away.
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of “unfair and potentially destructive competition.”"
"It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they “pirated.” In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it resolved the question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn’t exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus built their empire in part upon a “piracy” of the value created by broadcasters’ content."
"hese separate stories sing a common theme. If “piracy” means using value from someone else’s creative property without permission from that creator—as it is increasingly described today19—then every industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. . . . The list is long and could well be expanded."
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Revised Paper
*This video shows and features the song "New Friend Request" by WMG's Gym Class Heroes and it is there property solely and not my own and is being used for a school project at Appalachian State University in Internet Studies.
My_____________
The Internet phenomenon MySpace was created by Tom Anderson and Chris Dewolfe in 2003 and is based in California. Dewolfe is the former CEO of MySpace and Anderson is who all of the MySpacers know as Tom, the infamous first friend that any new MySpace user would have and he became the face of the social network. MySpace was the most popular social networking site in June 2006 and was overtaken by its competitor Facebook in April 2008.
Facebook and MySpace are similar in many ways, they let you communicate with your friends, they both allow privacy with private profiles, and the ability to only add who you want to add but MySpace allows the user to be creative and participate in the making of their very own page. On MySpace you can add music that plays on the page, and make custom layouts for each individual page where as Facebook is standard no matter whose page is being looked at.
Though they were over taken by the massive Facebook in 2008, on October 10th 2010 they released their new logo and hopes are that it will grab attention. The new logo was released at the Warm Gun Design Conference. This new logo sports the word my with a large space afterwards. This space will serve as a spot for community art work that will require the participation of MySpacers. Also this requires your participation, please vote for which logo you like best, the old or the new.
Because of Henry Jenkins we know that MySpace is a part of convergent culture by the definition set in Introduction: "Worship at the altar of convergence." Convergence is "the flow of content across multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want". MySpace fits into this in multiple ways, the first being the fact alone that music groups can make their own MySpace for their band that is treated in the same way other than that they host multiple songs that you can buy directly from the page, or click a lyrics link. Many people that search a band will either click on the actual page, or click on just the song that is hosted by MySpace. This allows pop culture to not only be high accessible but for it to be scrutinized, edited and posted on actual individual people's MySpaces.
This technology is fascinating, but there is even more way that this convergence is prevalent is how this created social change throughout bands and music artist around the world. Almost every band especially smaller local bands have MySpace’s that they advertise on business cards. Larger artist such as 311 a reggae band will advertise to go to its MySpace on a television commercial for their new CD. When consumers access these MySpace’s they can hear what the band has to say as it tells its story and find out what the music artist’s culture is, and how it differentiates or is similar to your own.
In YouTube Cultural Politics “When people take media into their own hands the results can be wonderfully creative; they can also be bad news for all involved.” One of these problems is that producers and consumers are distancing from each other in the aspect that they no longer need each other directly, there is a middle man. Consumers now are a part of the interactive era of advertising and communication and therefore want to act upon participating; they no longer are just willing to listen.
In YouTube Cultural Politics the author says, “YouTube is big enough and global enough, to count as a significant mediating mechanism for the cultural public sphere.” MySpace works in the same way as in that it attracts people from all over the world to join the MySpace world. Also similar to YouTube, MySpace there is a relationship between the individual and the “community” in the face of globalization and cultural difference. These individuals can represent their identities as well as perspectives on the Internet. They also have the ability to engage with others that might have the same values or maybe other values. In other words MySpace is allowing everyone to communicate with everyone else who is willing.
MySpace may have become a dinosaur and died out, though it wasn’t from the 20th century. Though it is trying to make a comeback and keep up with the times. MySpace is part of pop culture, convergent culture and participatory culture. It has become part of industrialization and integrated into our daily lives. MySpace allows individuals to become the media and to have opinions that are viewed by society.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)