The class discussion and talking about the reading yesterday made me think about why people read books.  No matter how many attempts the eBook industry makes to create a similar experiences to books (i.e. notes, page flipping, etc.) it will simply never be the same.  This is why I believe there has been a slow progression in the use of ebooks as The Late Age of Print described.  Now people are starting to realize it is a different experience and are accepting it for what it is, which is why they are becoming popular.

Password sharing is becoming more and more common on sites such as HBO Go, Netflix, and Hulu. Apparently, we are not the only people who have taken notice of this trend. A New York Times article titled, “No TV? No Subscription? No Problem” focused on the same topic. According to the author, “to the collective relief of nearly everyone I know, the companies with whom I spoke seemed to have little to no interest in curbing our sharing behavior — in part because they can’t.” The companies cannot track how many people are free-riding. They believe the current business model still generates the most profit.

One sentence in particular stuck out to me the most in this article: “[M]any more new paths are likely if the entertainment companies’ business models evolve in tandem with users’ habits.”Societal trends and advancements in technology are both changing how people use entertainment. Although e-Books and television are different, both industries’ business models and methods of delivery might be shifting as people change their user habits.

The title of the article, “Teacher Knows if You’ve Done Your E-Reading” might send a chill down some students spines. It describes a new advancement in technology that might be a student’s worst nightmare or the tool that could fix his study habits pre-eminently. The technology? Data tracking that allows professors to get a glimpse of if and how much students are reading their e-Textbooks.

College is a time for students to become independent and take more responsibility for their actions. This technology creates another figure watching over them. Furthermore, students might take notes on paper, which would negatively affect their rating. Others could can find ways to game the system. At the same time, the data tracking could help professors understand why students are not understanding material. Like many technologies, data tracking of e-reading has benefits and detriments depending on how it is used by students and professors alike.

As a Stephen King fan on Facebook I occasionally receive news about new projects and such.  This one link caught my eye and turned out to be another legal problem with an aspect of copyright.  This article describes a film company (CAA) that wants to make a prequel to The Shining, a Stephen King book that was made into a movie.  However, another film company (Warner Bros.) owns the rights of making the book into a movie which includes any part of the book including deleted portions.  The prequel that CAA wants to make a movie on is based on a prologue portion that was cut from the book but that is within the rights of Warner Bros.  Therefore, CAA has to get approval from not only Stephen King but Warner Bros. as well.

This part of the law I don’t agree with at all.  Warner Bros. never made any part of their movie about this inexistent portion of The Shining.  The film company shouldn’t receive the film rights to a part of a book that simply doesn’t exist.  In this case it should be completely up to Stephen King who came up with the idea for this deleted portion to give the rights to CAA.  Copyright Laws are supposed to protect people’s ideas, but this prologue to the book The Shining had nothing to do with the movie The Shining and the movie didn’t add anything whatsoever to the prologue.  If a film company buys the rights to a book it should only include the actual book’s story because other deleted parts simply aren’t parts of the book.  In this case Stephen King would allow the creation of this movie and the only thing standing in the way is Warner Bros. who had nothing to do with this deleted portion of the book.

Fox news reports this story link about another advancement in e-books that effects us as college students.  It’s about a program with e-books that allows professors to see the pages students are reading (and not reading) which in theory will allow professors to see where students are having trouble and focus more on needed areas.  This should benefit students, according to the company owner, and create a better educational environment for students.

The main debate that has surfaced from this is if this is too “Big Brother”.  This can be debated at length but my question is what are the legal boundaries for this?  Even if the professor tells the students to purchase this service I am not sure if the students is forced to our not.  The answer I believe lies in the same concept of buying a textbook for class.  No, the professor can’t force you to purchase it, but your grade will suffer if you decide not to.  It’s most likely the same policy with some differences.  The readings in a class are mandatory for any given student to learn the material, however this technology is not essential in learning any given subject.  It is an aid and therefore the policy that is with it should be treated as such.  It should be optional for a student to use it with no repercussions if they choose not to.  It is the students education and they should be able to make the decision if they would benefit from it or not.  If it is deemed mandatory by professors it is unjust because it simply is not needed to learn the course.

When Dr. Goodall spoke about environmental concerns and the current practice of patenting plants that are genetically engineered I immediately thought of this class. Imagine a world in which corporations could own a life form. Imagine if evolution naturally created a life form that was close enough to a patented life form to warrant a copyright violation, would that corporation be able to sue nature? the premise of patenting a life form seems ridiculous to me for that very reason.

As an announcement if your like me and couldn’t get a ticket to the talk itself they are live streaming the talk here.

In my research for my previous blog regarding video recording on Broadway, I came across this 1987 New York Times article that describes Betty Corwin’s attempts to videotape plays on Broadway for archival purposes. Ms. Corwin was inspired when she “kept thinking of all those shows that were gone forever.”  In order to save the shows of her lifetime, Ms. Corwin began videotaping them to create an archive.  Broadway union workers and the playwright Neil Simon were among those who disapproved of Ms. Corwin’s work.  As a result, the tapes are “available for viewing only to students, researchers and theater professionals.”  While I generally disagree with recording live performances, I think this is a completely reasonable exception.  This should make us question where we draw the line, though.  Should every live performance be archived?  Should the viewing audience be expanded?  What has changed between 1987 (when the article was written) and now?

As other members of the class have noted, it is typical for live performances to discourage and even prohibit recordings of their performances to be made.  Broadway is notorious for this.  Many of my childhood memories involve ushers harshly whispering at me, nine year old Shannon, to put away my camera as I took pictures of the chandeliers and the stages.  At the time, I was a bit confused (and annoyed at the usher for yelling at me), but I now understand that the effects of illegal videos of live performances could greatly impact the financial stability of such performances, with Broadway being at the forefront.

In 2009, Patti LuPone, a well-known Broadway performer, famously stopped in the middle of a performance of Gypsy because an audience member was seen taking pictures of Ms. LuPone.  Funnily enough, the event itself was also videotaped.  The reactions to Ms. LuPone ranged widely.  Many praised her for standing up for herself and her art, while others considered it a gross over-reaction.  Personally, I agree with Ms. LuPone.  What do you think?  And what does it mean that there is a video of an actress stopping a show to yell about recording during performances?

According to this article, Stacy Daxe quit Facebook after attending a concert. “My enjoyment was marred by idiots filming the concert and posting links to their Facebook status,” Daxe said. “It was annoying, rude and quite ridiculous given the fact that the quality of those videos was so poor, even Batman wouldn’t have been able to see them.” The article continues stating, “In general, the person who owns the copyright in the musical composition embodied in the video has the exclusive right to publically perform it, reproduce it and distribute it,” said Margaret R. Marshall, shareholder and entertainment attorney at Greenberg Traurig law firm.  Obviously artists don’t have the time to go after everyone who publicly posts videos of performances on social sites so people continue to do so.  However, would you ever react like Stacy?

I came across this release statement that Lady Gaga was requiring photographers to sign for one of her concerts after I wandered onto this website. Going along with copyright in live performances, it seems that many artists prefer to have control over the release of photos of their performances.

“I personally haven’t encountered contracts as strict as Lady Gaga’s but I don’t usually work with such high profile artists,” Edmondson writes in an e-mail. “However, I believe very specific and restrictive contacts are common with big name artists/celebrities.”