Just thought I would revisit Brown bag #2 and professor Sikand’s example of licensing fees with her documentary and the Kesha Song. Just to bring up another example of how limiting the constraints of attempting to follow proper copyright law can be for independent filmmakers I would like to bring up the film Clerks. As the linked tailer mentions at the end the film includes a soundtrack from big name bands like Alice in chains. However what is more notable about Clerks in particular is that the costs of the film were so low and the licensing fees so high that the majority of the film’s budget went to paying the record labels for permission to use the soundtrack. With artists like Tom Waits pushing for harsher copyright laws and banning impersonation how then are low budget filmmakers supposed to create films? Unfortunately the laws are getting harsher and making it more difficult for artists to create.

After watching the speakers today, I thought about whether or not their speeches should be treated the same way as books when it comes to copyright. Honestly, I think speeches should have copyright laws. The person is speaking their mind, their words, and their thoughts. How is that any different from someone who chooses to write it down instead of saying it out loud?

A few days ago, I was at a meeting and I looked around to see that everyone there was either on their laptops or Ipads taking notes. Then, I looked at the Professor holding the meeting and noticed he was taking notes on a piece paper. As we were discussing a packet that was emailed out to everyone, I found it very that the Professor actually seemed one step behind everyone else in the meeting because he was the only one who did not have the ability to pull up the packet on his laptop. This is such an interesting concept to me. The thought that a simple electronic device can make you one hundred times more prepared for something seems funny. Also from this meeting, I began to understand the concept of how important technology really has become in our society. Technology allows us to compete with one another on a whole new scale. I have always argued against technology because I feel at times technology is going to take over society and become more intelligent than humans. However, I finally realized how important technology really is because without it we will never be able to keep up with the other growing countries around the world.

Thinking back to the difference between live performances done by authors compared to their actually written copy. I could not help but think of Jane Goodall. Her speech was so inspiring, yet somehow I really did enjoy reading one of her books more. I feel like I learned so much more from the book almost like I was inside her mind at times. However in her speech which was inspiring, I felt like there was so much of her life and goals left out. i feel like in book authors really have an opportunity to open up their minds to the reader.

Today, my macroeconomics professor gave us this article to read and it had to do with this class! It is about intellectual property and if it helps or hurts economic growth. The Article argues that in some countries, following strict intellectual property laws can help economic growth because it forces companies and inventors to make new products that have never been made before. But in some cases, such as with less developed countries, these laws could slow down economic growth. To illustrate this idea, an example would be if a company came up with the idea of a boat. If that idea was patented, in a smart, well-developed country, someone will invent a plane so they can still have international trade. But in a country that is incapable of creating a plane, the boat would be able to be used as a way to sell goods. If the boat is patented and can not be used by anyone other than the inventor, the company that invented it would do very well, but the country as a whole would not benefit from the invention.

I found it interesting that, one the second page of his introduction chapter, Striphas writes how poor reading skills seems to relate to people becoming “deadbeats, dropouts, and criminals.” Right away he shows that he wants to talk about the impact of literature, and overall reading on the nation. But at the same time, just in class we realized that we probably do more reading than we thought. Does this imply an increase, as opposed to the former observed decline in literacy? Then again, considering what DOES get written on the internet, grammar and literacy seem to not apply.

I think it’s interesting how some artists attain most of their wealth through live performances while others make most of their money through the actual published works. In the play industry,for example, I know that most of the profit is made through live performances rather than the selling of actual play scripts. However, the opposite is true of the book industry. For example, J.K. Rowling makes a majority of her money through the selling of her books. Only a small portion of her fortune is made through speeches. After analyzing all of the various types of creative industries it seems to me as if a majority of artists seem to gain their wealth through live performances. This became especially evident to me after searching the internet in an attempt to find a full live concert performance of one of my favorite artists, and finding it extremely difficult to do so. I was only able to find short clips of their concert performances, all of which were extremely blurry and hard to hear. I then found this website, which was supposed to allow for the listening of live concerts. After I clicking on the website link, a notice popped up stating that I would not be able to view this page. I’m guessing that the reason for this had something to do with copyright infringement, although I’m not positive. The one thing that is clear is that artists these days make it extremely difficult for their live performances to be viewed online. Although it is certainly possible to do so, it is nonetheless a hassle.

I found an interesting article in TIME magazine discussing a court case that dealt with the issue of copyright on twitter. The case appeared in 2010, when rules regarding twitter and copyright were still relatively unclear to the public. The case centered around the idea of an individual giving up ownership of tweets when posting on twitter. The court eventually ruled that “publishing something on twitter is not the same as relinquishing ownership”. I think that this ruling was a rather obvious one, and that just because someone decides to tweet something shouldn’t mean that they are giving up the ownership of that tweet. This case reminded me of something I remember hearing regarding instagram, which is apparently changing their terms of use to state the complete opposite. Their terms of use were to be changed to state that photos taken on the app could be used for commercial use and are consequently not owned by the photographer, but by instagram instead. I remember my mom showing me this article and being completely shocked by it, even with the little knowledge on copyright I had possessed at the time.