fjrfapril has 14 post(s)

The creation of copyright was intended to protect the original products of a person. It was made to prevent the usage and sharing of the product without notice, consent or payment for product. Due to the rise of digital media and its advancements, copyrights are becoming difficult. Focusing on a more artistic aspect, it is challenging for the creator to rely on a copyright because of how easy it is to duplicate ones work, change it, and share it digitally.

“The minute a film is released or an essay is published, it begins to race around the Internet, passed through peer-to-peer networks, posted on personal Web sites, quoted in social media streams. In one sense, therefore, any ownership claim is essentially fanciful, since, in practice, people’s creations circulate in ways they cannot control”(145). Once something is posted on the Internet, in a way, it doesn’t belong to that person anymore. It is widely and immediately shared, whether the creator wants it to be or not. After that decision is made to post, there really isn’t a way to hold onto it and not expect there to be changes made or viewed without cost. As soon as that idea is out there, it is then possible for everyone to make what he or she wants of it. They can now tweak it, in the slightest way, that it isn’t the original person’s idea anymore. Nothing is original anymore; everything we have seen or heard has been developed from someone else’s idea. It’s a constant cycle.

Do the problems and challenges with copyrighting and digital media mostly pertain to those who need copyrights most, those who spent thousands of dollars and/or years on their creation only to not get that money back or see a small profit or to those are more fortunate because they are well-known and have the money and time to spend?

2.0 people, the new digital age generation. We are the people who have grown up with the understanding of new technology and how to use it most effectively. 2.0 people are different from those that came before them. This generation prefers having everything immediately at their fingertips.

They take in and process information differently. I like to think that most of this generation is well informed with the news but not by how a person would normally get it. For example, I get the most important news from being on social media. All the horrible events that took place in the last year or so, and the events that are still happening today, I find out about them through all of my social media platforms. I don’t have a news app nor do I watch the news. Surprisingly, the news found on there is very detailed and informative and more accurate than anything that is televised.

2.0 people are always connected to the Internet. If the elderly are having troubles with any technology, it is probably the 2.0 people they call to help them. When researching, 2.0 people are able to find what they need within minutes. The problem however might be finding the correct and accurate source. 2.0 people tend to like having things quickly, which can be a fault of the generation. The question of quality vs. quantity comes into play. Is it about how many different sources you can find or how much information can you find in one source?

This “digital native” generation is able to create whatever they please on all platforms and share their content immediately with one click of a button. There are no limits to what the 2.0 people can do with the Internet.

In this new economy, the two realms of which Taylor speaks of are very much present. It seems as though we are loosing all of our creativity just to be able to get a sustainable job. We constantly have to choose if we want to do something because we love it/genuinely want to do it or we have to because we are told to and we must comply with the rules set forth by those in higher positions.

Unfortunately, for those who believe their work serves the “public good” it’s difficult to choose between their job and whatever sparks their creativity or somehow choose to do both. For artists, I believe that they try to the best of their ability to be creative. However, the problem is not that they aren’t capable of it, it’s the economic part of what they do that vacuums any spark of creativity. Musicians are starting to become this way. It’s hard to find any type of meaning behind the most popular songs today. There is no creative spirit flowing through the tracks. If there happens to have a song with meaning, it isn’t difficult to find another song with a similar meaning. There used to be a time where I can sit down, listen to a whole album and each song had a different and deep meaning that would take a while to understand because the artist implemented his/her creativity with language. Now, they do what is told by those who are above them. Every decision is made by the authoritative figure.

I think these two realms have become known as the two realms that create challenges because of the hierarchy system of today’s economic world. The lowest class of this system is those who are hired. These are the teachers, the artists, the activists and the others who have a role in serving the “public good.” It is rare to find a teacher that uses his/her own technique to teach nowadays because of the imposed changes by those with more power. Should that person be creative with their job, do things no teacher has ever done before or should that person just do what they are getting paid to do and just teach straight from the textbooks? Activists can’t just speak out on an issue they feel strongly about. There are laws and guidelines on how to correctly protest.

Is this the kind of future we have to look forward to? Will our input or ideas matter anymore?

The shift Turner talks about is the acceptance of computers and new technology from one era to the next. There are a number of things that could’ve changed our views of information technology and the Internet itself. Within our group we talked about the following possibilities why there was a drastic change.

Time can do wonders on new ideas and concepts. It was approximately 30 years since the first introduction of the computer to society in the 60s to the 90s. Time allowed advances that would transform the way people did things and the way they lived with themselves. Also, within the 30 years people were able to learn more about computers and their abilities. This could be the reason why the shift of acceptance went from being extremely hesitant in the 60s to welcoming in the 90s.

Another thing to take into consideration is the difference with the generation. In the 60s, things like televisions, phones, computers, etc. was in its beginning stages. During this decade, many people were against military and government, especially the Vietnam War. Computers then were for military use. When it was available for public use it did not gain much acceptance. They were more skeptical of why the computer was available to them when it was strictly for the military. It could also be possible that they might’ve felt as if the government was trying to control them, maybe even trying to take away their individual privacy. In the 90s people were more carefree and open-minded. I think they were more accepting because more information was available to them. There was also this sense of free being with technology. They were able to do what they wanted and discover new things with what was available for them. This change in view goes for any new concept/idea that is introduced to humankind.

Janelle Figueroa