Being from around the area, I was probably one of the few students who knew what the Moravian Book Shop was (when you mentioned it in class), let alone been inside of it many times. Since a lot of my high school friends live in Bethlehem, we’d find ourselves on the main street quite a lot, never able to resist entering the Moravian Book Shop. As you can tell from the picture it is not your typical book store; it sells much more than just books. And it even has a cafe in which to dine.

This store is extremely well known in the community in which I grew up. And it is definitely one of the quaintest stores I have ever been in. During the holiday season, this store is especially festive and bustling with customers. Thinking about Amazon putting places like the Moravian Book Shop out of business is a sad thought. I know that many people in the community would be greatly disappointed if that were to happen. The experience of going into that store can not even be captured by going to a regular book store, such as Barnes & Nobel, let alone buying from an online selection of books provided by Amazon. Needless to say, the Moravian Book Shop is a very unique store that would be a shame for the lehigh valley to lose.

I was browsing my facebook newsfeed yesterday and came across this article: NBC “confirms” Friends new comeback season reunion! Being a big fan of Friends, of course I had to check this out. I was very excited reading the first paragraph of the article, but the second paragraph was not as promising. It noted that NBC was not aware if the original cast members of Friends were all willing to participate in this new season. This made me think of copyright laws. Friends would just not be the same show even if only one cast member were to be substituted. Each character brings with them their own personal touch to the show and although a good actor/actress may be able to act out the lines well- the experience of watching the show would be completely different. Especially for the generations that watched Friends, swapping a new actor in for someone else would be terrible. I know, at least, I wouldn’t be able to get past the introduction of a new actor as Ross, Joey, Chandler, Monica, or Rachel. Perhaps for younger generations that were not as familiar with the show, a new actor wouldn’t pose any problem. But for the Friends fans, it would not be fair to change the characters who we grew up with and still call it the same show.

The new augmented reality book brings the traditional pop up book into the future. As seen on amazon, this book along with a computer and a web cam create a whole new way to read and experience children’s books.

What do you think of digital pop- up books? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1s-JFxEmtpY

Its amazing to see how specific and complex copyright has already become.  Copyright has already developed from full works, to sentences, to phrases, and now to now words.  Not just a word, but the expression and pronunciation of a single word.  Looking through an article on 5 Everyday things you won’t believe are copyrighted, among the rediculous copyrighted things like living species and the phrase “Super Bowl,” one of the most intriguing is the copyright on the word “yup.”  Dave Hester from Storage Wars copyrighted the word “yup.”  Problem is, an article in the NY post explains that rapper Trey Songz’ lawyer took Hester to court for using the same word and making tshirts and hats out of the word.  Hester argued, “the main difference is that Songz’ version “resembles an animal-like or nonhuman squeal which begins with a distinct ‘yeeee’ sound before finishing with a squeal-like ‘uuuup’ sound,” as opposed to Hester’s own “monosyllabic sounding guttural auction bidding phrase.”  Hester tried to fight back: “Hester’s suit seeks unspecified damages and a court order barring Songz from “interfering” with his use of “YUUUP!” which Hester trademarked in September.”  Songz’ lawyers never responded to the statement, probably because they didnt expect Hester to fight back.  The two words actually have different expressions.

When I was about 15 my uncle brought me to my first broadway play since I had seen the Lion King when I was very young, it was called Avenue Q. For those that do not know Avenue Q is a comedy which utilizes both real people and puppets in its story. It was and still is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. This being the high point of my illegal downloading phase, my first instinct was to go on the internet and find a recording and watch it again. However, much to my dismay, I was unable to find any video of more than 2 minutes of the actual play. This really confused me, if movies and music were so easily accessible on the internet, why shouldn’t plays be readably accessible. Now though, I understand the importants of keeping plays off the internet, if plays were readily available on the internet it would devastate the industry. Not to mention it would take away from the art form as a whole. The day I saw Avenue Q it was a whole day trip, it was an experience. I took the train into the city, ate dinner in times square and then finally ended the night with the actual play, really adding to the play as an experience and not just something you see.

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.