At my internship this past summer, I got an interesting inside look at the publishing world.  Someone in the office made a joke that the company ran entirely on the royalties it made off of one extremely popular piece.  When I inquired into this, I learned that in the music business, royalties must be paid (to the artist/composer/publisher/recording company, etc.) every time a song (or part of a song) is used in a commercial setting.  This included commercials, web advertisements, soundtracks, public performances – you name it.   This idea was supported by Goldstein’s comment that “copyright is about money” (Goldstein 4).  Goldstein also discusses the concept of royalties when he mentions compulsory licenses, which legally force artists who cover another artist’s song to pay $0.08 for each recording of the cover (Goldstein 15).

This article offers an example of a company, Kobalt Music Group, that focuses on delivering royalty payments to artists.  Kobalt acknowledges that the digital age has made tracking the royalties due to artists more difficult, but also understands that royalties are a large portion of artists’ revenue.

While researching for my previous blog post, I found this 2010 article from the New York Times.  I felt that it needed its own post, as it deals with plagiarism in a slightly different way.  This article focuses on the role of technology in regards to plagiarism.  The author examines plagiarism in college and how digital media is blurring rules of plagiarism, as more and more students fail to cite their sources from neglect and ignorance.  Students are also more often directly copying from websites and other digital sources, as the internet has made this even easier, with a simply “copy” and “paste” command.  The author writes that the internet is changing how students “understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image.”  The author includes shocking statistics, such as one that states that “the number [of students] believed that copying from the Web constitutes “serious cheating” is declining — to 29 percent.”

It’s a pretty interesting article.  This relates directly not only to this class, but to our lives as college students, as we continue our undergraduate educations and technology continues to play a larger role in this education.

In Copyright’s Highway, Goldstein briefly touches upon a concept that is brought up so often on college and university campuses: plagiarism.  Goldstein writes, “True plagiarism is an ethical, not a legal offense and is enforceable by academic authorities, not courts” (Goldstein 8).  Lafayette has a strict policy against plagiarism and is found in the Student Handbook, the Faculty Advising Handbook, and on the website of the Dean of the College, to name a few sources.  I was shocked to discover that this concept, which I had for so long believed to be illegal, was not in fact supported by any court, but rather only upheld by academia.

What do you think? Should plagiarism be illegal, or is the upholding of rules against plagiarism by colleges and universities unnecessary, as it is technically considered legal in the United States?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/shirt+tempest+tests+copyright/8016293/story.html

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/539930/surrey-up-in-arms-over-the-future-dies-here-spoof-hoodies/

Today in class we discussed the place of parodies within copyright law. Similar discussions are also being had in Surrey, Vancouver. Recently, a local resident and entrepreneur started to sell clothing that read, “Surrey, the future dies here.” The city’s actual motto is, “Surrey, the future lives here.” The gun logo resembles the shape of the city’s skyline in the actual logo. In America, parodies are given more liberty to copy original works. Canada, however, only recently added parodies to its list of what is protected under copyright law. If the Canadian judicial system uses precedent like the American judicial system does, a future lawsuit could begin to clarify the freedom that parodies to mock work in Canada. That would be pretty important, eh?

As someone who likes to hold a book and flip the pages as I read, I was not sure if the Kindle e-reader experience would be enjoyable. I initially struggled to use the buttons correctly–skipping to the next chapter rather than turning to the next page. It was very light so holding it felt weird. Like most users who are new to a certain technology, I felt slightly uncomfortable using the tablet. I wanted the paper book back.

I wanted the paper book back, however, until I was in class today. During the discussion about how Goldstein described Justice Holmes, I was able to type “Holmes” into the Kindle search box. I selected The Copyright Highway and instantly got 15 excerpts. One of the excerpts seemed to fit the discussion at hand, too. Had I only had the paper copy of the book, however, I would have had to go to the index, find the page numbers where Holmes was listed, read the pages, and find the passages. While this search process has value (I think…?), the ability to get instant excerpts was very helpful in class today.

In conclusion, while I enjoy reading from paper books outside of class, having a Kindle during class discussions would be great.

I just came across this article by the New York Times about a lawsuit challenging Conan Doyle copyrights. I thought this article was interesting, because it is the opposite of what we have been discussing.  Rather than fighting for copyright, this article fights against one. The name Arthur Conan Doyle may sound familiar, and that is because he was the author of the beloved Sherlock Holmes.  Sherlock Holmes has become a cultural phenomenon, with in more recent years, multiple movies and television series starring the character, coming about. A few weeks ago, a civil complaint was filed claiming “many licensing fees paid to the Arthur Conan Doyle estate have been unnecessary, since the main characters and elements of their story derived from materials published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law.”  The complaint also claims that the estate, a business entity in England, sent a letter to a publisher saying it would prevent the selling of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” if a licensing fee is not paid.  Through the complaint, the court has been asked to “make a declaratory judgment establishing that the basic ‘Sherlock Holmes story elements’ are in the public domain.” The complaint does not deny the fact that the estate is the “sole and exclusive owner” of the material that remains under copyright.  The man who filed the complaint believes that he shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws because he didn’t draw on any material from the stories still under copyright.  If the man who filed the complaint is telling the truth, which I must believe he is, then I would have to agree with him.  This man shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws if the works he is drawing from are already in the public domain.

For my post i watched The Alphabet Part 4. This sections intrigued me because it dealt with the advent of the fountain pen. Our fountain pens have made had a profound effect on how i view the written word. The 30 minute segment ends with a modern view of the scribe, now known as a Calligrapher; who will carry on the torch into the future. However, it is said that Calligraphy is seemingly a dying breed, I have only met a handful of people who knew how to write using it. All is not lost however, if our last book viewing has taught me anything, it is that there is still an appreciation for hand written words.