Monthly Archives: February 2013

Zero Draft

Leave a reply

The concept of copyright laws and intellectual property has been a major topic of discussion recently in regards to the case of Aaron Swartz. Swartz, one of the co-founders of the immensely popular website known as Reddit.com, has long been known as a major advocate for greater freedom in regards to the sharing of information. In July 2011 however, his activity in this area became the cause of much controversy, as he came into conflict with the law. Authorities claimed that Swartz had illegally gained access to JSTOR, a subscription service for scientific and scholarly articles, and had used this access to download millions of pages of material. It is widely believed that he intended to publicly distribute these documents as part of his quest for greater intellectual freedom. Facing a possible sentence of 35 years in prison, along with a potential $1 million fine, Swartz committed suicide in January of 2013. In light of this tragedy, many are calling for reform in the area of intellectual copyright laws, as a way to honor Swartz’s legacy and continue the fight he started. It would be interesting to look further into this event, examining the debates that are currently taking place as a result of it. In addition, it would be beneficial to conduct some historical research into the area of intellectual property on the internet  to see if similar controversies have occurred.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html?_r=0

Blogging Prompt – Questions

Leave a reply

One of the major questions I’ve had regarding intellectual property rights and copyright laws has to do with the issue of work composed by deceased writers. Many of the classes I have taken at Lafayette, particularly the history courses I’ve completed, involved reading several scholarly articles, some dating back hundreds of years. I have always been curious as to exactly who exactly would own the rights to these readings when the original authors have been dead for some time. Common sense tells me that many of these works would find themselves in the public domain. However, I would like to know if there are any exceptions to this, and if there are any cases in which ownership of such scholarly articles has been disputed.

Manuscripts

2 Replies

The session in the Library on Tuesday, February 5th helped to establish a real connection with the first two chapters of Nicole Howard’s The Book. This was not my first time viewing such forms of print, as I have seen pictures of them in the past. However, seeing these works in person allowed me to truly notice and appreciate all the intricate details. What was particularly eye-opening for me was seeing the actual print itself. In the Howard reading, she mentioned how an effort was made to make the printed text appear as if it was handwritten, rather than done by machine. I had a hard time picturing this, but seeing the real life examples clearly explained this. The words in the manuscripts had nowhere near the boldness or clarity of text seen in modern books. It truly did appear to look like work an ancient scribe could have done. Another notable feature was the amount of work that went into producing the various intricate details of the pages, such as the colorization of the capital letters. Seeing this reminded me of the evolution that books have undergone over the years. While the goal in modern book production is to cheaply distribute as many copies as possible, people in earlier times saw the creation of these works as a much more intricate art process.

Zero Draft Idea

Leave a reply

When I first thought about intellectual property I started to think back on a documentary I had watched last year on music sampling. In music, sampling is the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a sound recording in a different song or piece. In this manner, artists are able to build off of each other’s works. The original artist gets a certain royalty from the use of their old track and sampling often enables their old song to gain new exposure. As I became more interested in this topic I started to research Creative Commons Licenses. Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that offers free legal tools to protect the use of creative work while maximizing the amount of material that is available for free and legal sharing, use, repurposing, and remixing (Creative Commons 2010). It is interesting to consider Creative Commons Licenses as an “alternative history” to copyright laws.

 

Zero draft

1 Reply

Copyright Laws exist to protect authorship and avoid unauthorized versions and variations of said work. Should copyright laws then also protect work from its own author?  In film particularly this has become a growing problem as technology improves and the digitization of film stock becomes more cost effective. More and More we see old films shot  on 35mm film being re-released in HD digital format, this in itself would not pose a problem and would facilitate consumership by a more modern audience than that at the time of the film’s original release. However, Filmmakers who retain the rights to their films such as George Lucas have taken this as an opportunity to change details in their films by re-editing them. This can change the entire meaning of certain scenes and the way characters are viewed by audiences. A prime example is the infamous Cantina scene in Star Wars: A New Hope. In the original cut of the scene at the time it is released Harrison Ford’s character murders an Alien attempting to capture Ford’s Character Han Solo. In this original version in Han Solo shoots through a table and kills the Alien before he has a chance to react. Lucas then re-released the film in an updated version boasting of better technology and an “Improved” film. Audiences were horrified when they noticed that the Cantina scene had been re-edited to a version in which the Alien shoots first and Han Solo reacts in self defense. This changes Han’s character from an edgy space cowboy to a righteous yet gritty adventurer.

 

This is but one example of how changing a minor detail can in turn change the motives of a central character and therefore the entire emotional aspect of the film. Do Authors have the right to go back on their fans and change details of the work that Audiences have come to know and love or does this work now that it has been consumed by the general public belong to the general public. Modern Copyright laws have repeatedly shown us that lawmakers feel that the work belongs to its author and that the author may do as they please with said work, including re-releasing and changing details.

Who Needs An Autopen When You Could Have Margaret?

Leave a reply

First to give this scene context (or at least what I can recall as the context): President Bartlett had been shot and was undergoing an emergency operation. He had not signed a document releasing himself from power. At the time, there was a large international crisis occurring so officials were unsure who was Commander-in-Chief.

Admittedly, I was searching Youtube for a different scene from the West Wing that highlighted speech writing, but stumbled upon this rather topical scene en route. Here, the power and meaning of a signature are highlighted. What is the difference between an autopen and a perfected (perhaps a better adjective would be forged) signature of a person? Is it the intent of the owner of the idea? President Bartlett did not authorize Margaret to sign on his behalf whereas he might authorize the use of an autopen to sign legislation. Also, Leo questions why Margaret is even practicing President Bartlett’s signature. How should a person’s signature be valued and should it be protected, if possible?

Course of the Course

Leave a reply

In our first week of readings and discussions, we talked about how technology and available materials affect publication. We also analyzed the experience between author and reader and how it relates to ownership of text. I am interested how in these ideas, as well as those that we will learn about this semester, apply to literary and daily experiences in today’s age and in the future. What do I mean by that?

Recently, I sent out an email to set up a meeting for my Student Organization Committee. One of the committee members emailed back asking what he should bring to the meeting to which I was going to respond a pen and paper until I realized that this technology is becoming increasingly outdated. Smartphone technology, iPads, computers, etc. are changing the way people record notes. What does this mean for how note taking and idea exchange is recorded? How will we access and assess this information in the future when smartphones, iPads, and computers are outdated? In 100 or 1000 years, will people be able to look back at our notes and written record of exchanges like we were able to see when we looked at the cuneiform tablets in the library on Tuesday? Does it matter?

Secondly, when we discussed the relationship between reader and author presented by Baurtes (the reader adds his or her own interpretation to the work), it reminded me of the dilemma of text messaging and emails. More and more, technology is becoming a substitute for human interactions. Sometimes, readers misperceive the message sent via text or email because they cannot get the facial or vocal cues given by the author. Are there other instances that we will encounter that we can apply more broadly to our own lives?

Zero Draft Portfolio 1

Leave a reply

Just a few things I am thinking about for my first essay.

In our contemporary world and modern day society, copyright functions as a control in different markets.  From music to publishing, copyright acts as a way for artists and creators to decide under what conditions, if any, others may use their work.  If we no longer had the protection of copyright, then we could essentially take control of these different markets, adapting the creations within each to our own personal perceptions.  How could this be beneficial to the public? How would the elimination of copyright impact artists? If printing houses hadn’t differentiated themselves from one another, would copyright exist today?

Zero Draft Thoughts

2 Replies

Just some questions that have come to mind while thinking about this portfolio. I’m trying to decide which questions I will focus on.

Without copyright would aritists want to to keep producing their particular art form? How would it impact other areas such as theatre and movies that are often based on books?Would a world without copyright lead to more creativity and an increase in unconventional forms of art? Would a world without copyright law lead to artistic chaos?

 

 

Watermarks and Their Impact on Copyright: A Zero Draft Response

Leave a reply

In the early days of book history, many of the books being printed were religious texts such as the Bible or the Mainz Psalter, which have no clear author.  So, rather than distinguish these texts by an author, they were distinguished by their printing house.  Fust and Schoffer, who worked alongside Gutenberg, distinguished the Mainz Psalter, their set of commonly sung church psalms, with a printer’s device, or “a logo representing the book’s house of origin” (Howard 34).  After Fust and Schoffer, Howard notes that many other printing houses followed suit.  This tradition may be traced back to the development of watermarks by printing houses in the earlier days of printing.  Howard notes that, over time, many printing houses developed watermarks to be printed on the paper created in that particular printing house.  This served to distinguish the work of each printing house from one another.  This seems to be, according to Howard, one of the first forms of ownership in book printing.

Had printing houses not felt the need to distinguish their works from one another, would publishing houses today feel the need to do the same?  Would copyright and ownership laws be any different?  These are the questions I aim to answer in my first paper of the portfolio.