Topic 1: First Amendment, Copyright and Freedom of Expression
1. After seeing the documentary "RIP! A Remix Manifesto," what did you find most interesting/surprising/alarming in the video as it relates to the First Amendment or freedom of expression? Please cite an EXAMPLE or two from the documentary, AND relate it to your own experience.
What I found most interesting is the amount of people who believe that it is okay to steal and use someone else's intellectual property. Society today has been built by capitalism and everything is buying and selling. I really do not know anyone who does anything for free. In 2006, I actually created a system strategy called ENC or Enter, Neutralize, and Control that I used for martial arts instructional videos. I did make it open for use with the stipulation that my name was cited for its creation and development. In a few short months many people used it and pawned it off as their own work and I even saw it recently published on a Facebook page for a famous Brazilian Jiu-jitsu instructor claiming that he created it. I have had the personal experience of having my work taken by people and altering the wording a slight bit and then using the strategy to make money. Some of the people were my own students who were paying to learn in person. Many of the students but not all received training for free and all I requested is that they get written permission from me to use my work. I of course had many complaints and requests to make my work open source and available to anyone so that the work would evolve. That did make sense to me however, I found out later that these same people who wanted my work for free went out and demanded money for it when it was their turn to instruct. I see the same thing on the film "Rip! A Remix manifesto." If it is the law then people have to respect that whether they like it, agree with it, or hate it. I do see people who say they created their own "Mix" however, taking someone else's work or many peoples and then mixing it, although is a creative process, does not mean they created the work and I see this as disrespectful and stealing. I saw in the film, the man who made his version of Mickey Mouse and seemed to justify it because Walt Disney pirated the mouse before it became Mickey. Someone else breaking the law does not justify anyone else doing it. All people are doing here, that is alarming, is calling for chaos.
2. What questions or concerns do you have about copyright or limits on creativity?
In reality no one really creates anything that is original without prior references from somewhere else or from someone else. First of all, I don't think anything should have been allowed to be copyrighted to begin with. I do not think that people need to be policed on money issues. The problem, in my opinion, is giving some group large or small, the power to make law to "govern" the people to begin with. I certainly do not need to be told nor forced to do something because someone else said it was or is a law. I never subscribed to law to begin with nor did I believe or accept my name that was given to me. As a natural person- I was born on this planet and no one truly "owns" it. I never subscribed to the idea that people need to be domesticated, forced into conformity, or anything else of the sort. That being said, since this is the insane social construct in which we live, I will give my opinion as it is expected of me since I did subscribe in agreement to complete this class (besides finding it very informative and interesting.) I think that there should be no limit of time attached to copyright. If someone owns something and has agreed to live as a citizen then they own it until death and then if the material is not granted to another person by will then it should be public domain. In so far as creativity- I think it is great that people are creative and I truly like "creative commons." However if the created work is the result of former owned material that is copyrighted then no the material should not be used without permission. If people don't like the laws, they can petition to revoke their citizenship, or subscribe in agreement to obey the laws they consented to.
3. Write about an instance where you think an artist/writer/musician, the media or group or individuals went too far in exercising their freedom of speech or of the press.
I think the person in the film who makes the remix's went too far in exercising his freedom of speech. I understand that he wants to change the laws however, breaking laws is not the way to do it. I do wonder if he actually makes money in those concerts as well. I wonder what gives him the right to feel entitled to use someone else's work for free and then profit from it? What if I took someones book and stole parts of it and then wrote my own book with those parts and profited from it? I think that is outrageous and criminal. Is not this why we cite references in our own writing? For one thing we cite references because it is the right thing to do and not because of some law. I don't do anything that people say I have to do because of some law- but I do not outright break the law or attempt to circumvent it by the use of mass hypnosis tactics or through the use of propaganda such as Edward Bernays. Lastly, I may not agree with what someone says but they have the right to say it. As always here, I reserve the right to be wrong.
4. Be sure to share your take on the incident. What actions should be taken in response?
My take on the incident is that what the person does is illegal. He admits it in the film. I think he should and could unite with other similar minds and seek to change the law through petition but not through civil disobedience. I think the result will be martial law of the internet- eventually and these kinds of people will have been the cause in the interests of national security. I think that people who use other peoples work should be accountable if the person or corporation in their stead has suffered damages from such actions. When I say accountable, I mean that debits should be made to the persons account who stole the work, especially if he admitted it. Unintentional violation should include a warning and cease order. If I was a betting man, I would say that people are just naive in thinking that the internet is not monitored to begin with and it did not begin with the Patriot Act (although officially this is what people are told). Algorithms are record for every IP number in existence and ultimately all people who knowingly break the law will be held accountable and so it is the responsibility of the owner of such IP address to ensure its security so no unauthorized user can violate copyright or steal intellectual property. That is my prediction. Could it be a conspiracy theory? Well whatever you do, do not type Illuminati backwards in your internet search bar and hit enter.
What I found most interesting is the amount of people who believe that it is okay to steal and use someone else's intellectual property. Society today has been built by capitalism and everything is buying and selling. I really do not know anyone who does anything for free. In 2006, I actually created a system strategy called ENC or Enter, Neutralize, and Control that I used for martial arts instructional videos. I did make it open for use with the stipulation that my name was cited for its creation and development. In a few short months many people used it and pawned it off as their own work and I even saw it recently published on a Facebook page for a famous Brazilian Jiu-jitsu instructor claiming that he created it. I have had the personal experience of having my work taken by people and altering the wording a slight bit and then using the strategy to make money. Some of the people were my own students who were paying to learn in person. Many of the students but not all received training for free and all I requested is that they get written permission from me to use my work. I of course had many complaints and requests to make my work open source and available to anyone so that the work would evolve. That did make sense to me however, I found out later that these same people who wanted my work for free went out and demanded money for it when it was their turn to instruct. I see the same thing on the film "Rip! A Remix manifesto." If it is the law then people have to respect that whether they like it, agree with it, or hate it. I do see people who say they created their own "Mix" however, taking someone else's work or many peoples and then mixing it, although is a creative process, does not mean they created the work and I see this as disrespectful and stealing. I saw in the film, the man who made his version of Mickey Mouse and seemed to justify it because Walt Disney pirated the mouse before it became Mickey. Someone else breaking the law does not justify anyone else doing it. All people are doing here, that is alarming, is calling for chaos.
2. What questions or concerns do you have about copyright or limits on creativity?
In reality no one really creates anything that is original without prior references from somewhere else or from someone else. First of all, I don't think anything should have been allowed to be copyrighted to begin with. I do not think that people need to be policed on money issues. The problem, in my opinion, is giving some group large or small, the power to make law to "govern" the people to begin with. I certainly do not need to be told nor forced to do something because someone else said it was or is a law. I never subscribed to law to begin with nor did I believe or accept my name that was given to me. As a natural person- I was born on this planet and no one truly "owns" it. I never subscribed to the idea that people need to be domesticated, forced into conformity, or anything else of the sort. That being said, since this is the insane social construct in which we live, I will give my opinion as it is expected of me since I did subscribe in agreement to complete this class (besides finding it very informative and interesting.) I think that there should be no limit of time attached to copyright. If someone owns something and has agreed to live as a citizen then they own it until death and then if the material is not granted to another person by will then it should be public domain. In so far as creativity- I think it is great that people are creative and I truly like "creative commons." However if the created work is the result of former owned material that is copyrighted then no the material should not be used without permission. If people don't like the laws, they can petition to revoke their citizenship, or subscribe in agreement to obey the laws they consented to.
3. Write about an instance where you think an artist/writer/musician, the media or group or individuals went too far in exercising their freedom of speech or of the press.
I think the person in the film who makes the remix's went too far in exercising his freedom of speech. I understand that he wants to change the laws however, breaking laws is not the way to do it. I do wonder if he actually makes money in those concerts as well. I wonder what gives him the right to feel entitled to use someone else's work for free and then profit from it? What if I took someones book and stole parts of it and then wrote my own book with those parts and profited from it? I think that is outrageous and criminal. Is not this why we cite references in our own writing? For one thing we cite references because it is the right thing to do and not because of some law. I don't do anything that people say I have to do because of some law- but I do not outright break the law or attempt to circumvent it by the use of mass hypnosis tactics or through the use of propaganda such as Edward Bernays. Lastly, I may not agree with what someone says but they have the right to say it. As always here, I reserve the right to be wrong.
4. Be sure to share your take on the incident. What actions should be taken in response?
My take on the incident is that what the person does is illegal. He admits it in the film. I think he should and could unite with other similar minds and seek to change the law through petition but not through civil disobedience. I think the result will be martial law of the internet- eventually and these kinds of people will have been the cause in the interests of national security. I think that people who use other peoples work should be accountable if the person or corporation in their stead has suffered damages from such actions. When I say accountable, I mean that debits should be made to the persons account who stole the work, especially if he admitted it. Unintentional violation should include a warning and cease order. If I was a betting man, I would say that people are just naive in thinking that the internet is not monitored to begin with and it did not begin with the Patriot Act (although officially this is what people are told). Algorithms are record for every IP number in existence and ultimately all people who knowingly break the law will be held accountable and so it is the responsibility of the owner of such IP address to ensure its security so no unauthorized user can violate copyright or steal intellectual property. That is my prediction. Could it be a conspiracy theory? Well whatever you do, do not type Illuminati backwards in your internet search bar and hit enter.
Comments
Post a Comment