Sampling

Project one was to create a sample to convey a message. I thought this was going to be simple but when putting my pictures together from the net I had to choose carefully what I wanted to put on there. The second one was to create the same message but with my own copyrighted pictures (rights that I had to the pictures). I of course then took pictures of my own to use for my sample.
This brings up the idea of ownership. Since I made the piece of art so now I own it. But the first picture was taken from the internet, so do I truly own it? Can't someone just take the same art piece that I made and tweak it a little and now say that they own it? Of course they can, am I going to get mad over it, No. They could even use my second piece of sample and change it to their own preference. I wouldn't mind at all. If they are making money off of it would I be mad? Maybe just a little mad, but I didn't create the whole concept. They just branched off of mine and made it into their own. I'm sure that if someone remade my samples it might even turn out better than what my originally looked like. That's the idea I want put out there. If the change is better then why not allow it? People are always trying to look for more efficient ways to do things. These samples are pictures of everyday items just put together in my own way. Does someone one the exclusive right to a picture of everyday item? I hope not or else everyone selling items on eBay would be in big trouble for their display picture.

Copyrights and ownership

Lessig brings up the concept of getting a copyright for ideas which the one who produced it will be able to keep and publish for his or her own rights. The cost for this would be $1. This is a great idea. Many who are worried about others taking their ideas can protect them and for a very cheap fee as well. Others who aren't so worried about this can let the public take and change their works. The law has changed so much to protect the creator that it forgets that creativity can come from other works. Many similar fairy tales are told all over the world. Who has the exclusive right to them? Many are remade into movies, books, etc. Once they are published then are the creators of those movie, books, etc get the exclusive right? No because the origin of those stories come from different locations. People who tried to recreate those stories could be sued but aren't because the storyline doesn't belong to one person, it belongs to a community or culture.
Take music for an instance. Many musician or artist remake old songs. Now days you can't find an artist who isn't singing the same lyrics of an older song. The beat or temple may be changed but the lyrics are still the same. Or vice versa: many may change the lyrics but the background music is the same, nothing has been touched except for the lyrics. Yes, Lessig brings up that they may have paid for the rights to use these songs but why can't the public get the same rights? It always comes down to money. Whoever can afford to pay a fee can have ownership over a work.
This is also where creativity comes into play. Many artist likes to get credit for the creativity of their work, but its off the work of another. If someone was to bring up this in a face to face interview I'm sure that many of the artist would feel uncomfortable talking about it. Many movies and books also hold similar storylines. When does one author sue another over the same storyline. Sure they may have tweaked it a bit but isn't it still the same story, just different names? Creativity can be to build from another's work, but if the author or producer isn't okay with the public using his or her own work then get a copyright patent for it. Its that simple but the corporate and laws suppresses the public from creating change.

Educational uses

While reading Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a lot of the stories struck out at me. One was about characters and how they came to be. It was interesting because Walt Disney remade a cartoon from another show. But did that other show file lawsuit? What right did Disney have to copy another character. If anyone was to make an image of Mickey Mouse and redistribute it on national television Disney Inc. would have a field day. Of course there's the concept of the inventor. Many are entitled to their works and if someone is profiting from it besides them from the same work then of course it's wrong. But when it comes to changing the ideas and concepts that's where many have put in the time to improve or better an already out there idea. Where's the harm in that? Science is based on someone else's work and challenging it (some even prove other's wrong). Who truly has ownership? Many who can afford to pay for patents and lawyers to protect their rights will do that. For the less fortunate person you'd have to get permission and most likely pay a fee.
Another story that I found interesting is the story of a student who has worked hard to improve technology. He of course is a student at a technology institute. What made me so wrapped with emotions on this case was that this "search engine" was what the school was allowing other students to make and yet he was the one to get punish for it. Most of all is that his content on file wasn't created by him or deals with music. Yet the RIAA had the notion to file a lawsuit against him. Where does creativity and ownership draw the line. When is it okay to persecute someone who's education was to change the technology around him or her? Of course he dropped the case by a settlement, but what message did the RIAA expect to convey if they are going after students? Yes technology is changing fast but when the law stops the innovation of change (and probably for the better), many will begin to fight back.

Plagiarism Reflection

Writing my plagiarized paper was hard and easy at the same time. It was hard because I wanted to put the article or section I came across into my own words. I didn't want to plagiarize because I knew it was wrong, but at the same time I found it was easy to find the materials I needed to put my paper together. Also I needed to make sure that the paper sounded like it was my voice which made it difficult because when you're pasting different papers together it makes it hard to put it into one voice. I had to change some things and take out some pieces of the contents to make it sound like mine. I also found it difficult to not quote or give the source. I've been used to doing this when using someone's work that when I was finally done writing my paper that I had to take out the quotes then print. I found that it took me a while to copy and paste because I had to still put thought into it and I knew that I had to make it sound authentic. Of course many students with little time wouldn't have done that but this was an assignment and I had time too.
It was easy because it was cutting and pasting. All I had to do was find what I needed and put it into my paper. The Internet can provide me with many articles and also many books online. All I had to do was pick a topic. I decided to pick one that would interest me. I had to brainstorm what else I needed to put into the paper that would make it seem like I did all the work for it. After that all I had to do was find the sources to put my paper together.
So far this class has brought out the morals of writing in me. I know its wrong to plagiarize but I wouldn't mind ghostwriting. I guess I have my own boundaries when it comes to school.

Ghost Reflection

While writing my paper for someone else, I felt that if she did get in then that's great for me. Although I don't have much knowledge on her major, I knew that she would probably write a better paper. Also living with her and just knowing her made writing the paper better. My roommate liked the paper, but we did have to go through some corrections. Also the questions on the paper was very general, which made it easier to write too.
I didn't feel bad for writing it for her, maybe because I knew that she wouldn't hand it in. I'm sure that if I did a ghostwriting piece for someone it wouldn't be something connected to academics (papers for students). I guess when it comes to school and students its call cheating and plagiarism. And that's something I wouldn't take part in. But outside of school and there's a contract involved and within the rights of the law I wouldn't mind writing for someone else.

Ghostwriting

So the topic of ghostwriting comes up in our class. Where do people and publishers come in when it involves the ethics of writers and authors. Can authorship be bought? Who is in the wrong here?
As we all know the presidential speeches are written by ghostwriters. Even many of the autobiographies are written by ghostwriters. Are the candidates or officials wrong to hire someone to write their speeches?
I don't think so. So many are busy trying to run their own campaigns and schedule to makes it hard to actually sit down and write a speech. So many people are hired to help the candidates or elected officials. If writing a speech is part of the job description then its up to you to decide if you want this job or not.
Most of the things I've notice is that ghostwriters are hired to write for someone else. It is your duty to write a good book, article, etc. when you decided to take the job. I'm sure that the contract would state that you may not be able to publish your name onto the book. They may not even give you credit but its all part of the job. Don't like that concept then get out of the job. No one is making you choose to write a book for someone else, the decision to write it was yours (the ghostwriter).
We can talk about it in an economic sense. The piece can be earning a lot of money once it hits the stands but who's to know how well it might do? It may rise to be a best seller or tank and the publisher and author would loose money. If the ghostwriter really wanted to get in on the money then in the contract they should ask for a percent of the revenues made from the piece when it goes out to the public. Or they can ask for a bonus if the piece does well just make sure its in the contract.
Ghostwriting is a contractual job. Do I think its wrong not to give someone credit for the hard work they've done? Of course but you can also look at this like a company. Many of the CEOs and Presidents of the companies make the most money, but do they do a lot of the manufacturing or hand work that goes into the company? No, most of them are probably too busy putting out new market ideas or investing in other companies as well. How many of those company give their workers earn a raise if the product does well? Probably not a lot of them. How many workers get credit for making a product? Its all in the company name and not every individual is given the credit. Ghostwriting is similar because the real writer may not be credited but they are paid and its a job.

Author Depiction

Writing about an author and how they are portrayed in today's media: well that's most likely going to be in a romantic sense. Most movies want the audience to see where the author gets his or her inspiration from. My paper was on Finding Neverland. This movie is about J.M. Barrie who wrote Peter Pan. It shows who was his muses to write such a story. Barrie found quite an attachment to Sylvia Llewelyn Davie and her sons.
Barthes argument would have said that Barrie attached a lot of his life into the story. Peter one of the sons was the main character. The need to believe again was the main story (and the magic in the imagination). Many readers and viewers can see how Barrie uses his real life to write his stories. Barthes would of never agree to the idea of putting one's (the author's) life into the story. It would make the reader believe that this is the author's meaning and message. Barthes wants the reader to find his own meaning and for the story to have multiple meaning without having the author present to explain what it is.

The Reader

After reading Death of the Author it points out a very important notion on what an author does to a work or text. Barthes (author/writer of the article) brings up the point that in modern culture the written pages are based on the author's life. This can restrict the reader's mind the challenge the author's work. Barthes repeatedly brings up the concept that its the language that reaches out to its readers and not the author: "language knows a subject not a person" and its language that we read and write. And I agree. When society publishes a work the author is noted on the front. Once this author has been established as a great writer, then the work is already compromised. When people think of Shakespeare, they automatically assume that his works are prized in literature. I can see how this changes the way I think and others as well. Since English courses are required in high school I can remember reading plays and sonnets of Shakespeare. I never questions whether the works were notary or not. I never questioned whether I think his work was as amazing as the critics claim he is. Of course I never understood some of his works but then again its written in almost another language to me. Barthes also points out that in Greek Tragedy there are double meanings to the text. Maybe that's what authors need to do when writing to let the reader decides how its going to end.
Right now I'm taking a Political Theory class and we're told that the course is to understand the origins of law. So far I've been reading the bible. Don't take this the wrong way if you're religious but I love challenging what the bible has to say (its repetitious and has lots of contradictions). I know its the law of God, but look how far our world has come because of people who defy God. Science has flourished all over the world because of these defiant scientists (of course most of them were pretty religious themselves).
So without an author "the text lies in its destionation"-the reader. Not having an author can open up the concept that maybe this person is wrong and maybe I'll write something to challenge this written work/text. So think about it.

The blogging begins

So schools starting again. The first week is ending, and I'm in a class that requires blogging. I'm a student and I obviously use the internet, but blogging isn't my thing. I guess now it has to be. So far I've had to read articles on what a blog is and what consist of a blog. Very useful considering that I will be referring back to these article/blogs to help me get through my own blogging.

To my understanding a blog is like a diary. I haven't written in a diary or journal since I was a kid. I've only written diaries or journals due to the fact that its required for my classes.