In Matt Zoller Seitz’s article he states, “And due to widespread ignorance of the law, people who use copyrighted material in online videos tend to recoil in fear at the first sign of a takedown notice, not realizing that they have some recourse, however limited”, which made me wonder why wouldn’t independent media makers contact media corporations for their permission to use their work rather than infringing on copyrighted work?
Matt Zoller Seitz talks about how it is a problem that the copyright laws in place prohibiting independent media artists to tinker and reuse their work. Seitz says, “..thanks to media companies’ attempts to ignore, subvert and otherwise neutralize fair use provisions of copyright law – an exemption that permits selective quotation for purposes of criticism, commentary, education and parody.” A video essayist seeking to use a clip from “Talladega Nights” on the internet today is simply going to just use the quote they wish to use and be on their merry way; ignoring copyright has never been easier in today’s worldwide web.
Seitz does say that the web is vastly improving but I don’t understand how media makers feel comfortable infringing on copyrighted media while creating their work? An author doesn’t look to take words out of a book and put them into their own, without citing and crediting the quotes. With the copyright system and law, is it really that difficult for an independent media maker to get permission to use a clip or quotes before applying them to their work?
Ira Glass (2004) says in his article, “Finally, Alex says that beginners should abandon their ideas way quicker then they usually do. He says that understandably, because they haven’t done many stories, they often blame themselves if a story isn’t working. They try to make it work. They stick with it. They think it’s their fault if they can’t find the story in someone. There’s a myth that everyone has a story, Alex says. Everyone does have a story, sure, but it’s not necessarily a story that should be told on the radio.”
The question that immediately jumped into my head while reading is whether or not Glass would advise that person to revert back to an original abandoned thought once mastering other stories? I would imagine that a beginner in any trade would try and tackle their first couple projects full force with passion unloaded. Would it be wise for someone to return back to an idea that they couldn’t work with before, or is that abandoned idea simply an abandoned idea?
Glass quotes Alex, saying that it’s a myth that everyone’s story to tell isn’t news worthy or appealing enough to gain viewers on the air where’d I’d argue that any story is worthy of going live on the air if the storyteller makes the story worth listening to. For example Vin Scully, the broadcaster for the Los Angeles Dodgers and can make any old story appealing to the ears. Although he is not a radio talk host, commentating a ball game is quite similar to talking on the radio and his stories are as thrilling and grasping as any other radio story you could hear because of his storying telling skills.
Vin Scully stories: on Matheny and bird poop, broadcasting a proposal, on Jackie Robinson day, being sarcastic, and a Scully compilation.
Jefferson Bailey (2014) states, “Network diagrams and other visualizations of aggregate data can help identify outliers, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies within data that can be indicative of errors in cataloging, uncontrolled taxonomies, or other metadata issues requiring correction.”
These advanced methods of displaying visuals are not a brand new phenomenon that all of a sudden came out of the blue. Every type of organization, regardless of intent, would have been delusional for not applying pattern analyses to their practices attempting to enhance potential profits while minimizing loses. So with that being said, why hasn’t their been a diagram released for the American public informing them on the errors of the Nation’s Law Enforcement system incarcerating and holding more prisoners than any other country in the world.
It costs more to send a person to prison then to send a person to college.
Why hasn’t there been network diagrams informing the public of the downfall and negative effects of the War on Drugs? Seeing how the homicide rate has increasingly risen since Nixon set the prohibition on drugs, sparking drug wars across Latin Countries where the foreigners attempt to smuggle and make ungodly profits in the illegal and unstoppable drug market in America.
The capabilities of visualization devices today could even layout how unsuccessful the alcohol prohibition was during the 1920’s, showing how homicides rates drastically annually increased from the start of prohibition until the end in 1933.
Most American’s are more willing to watch a YouTube video or look at gifs rather than reading an informational article. Once some genius sets up this diagram, I believe many more Americans would finally become aware of the realities of the War on Drugs and come to the agreement that no one will ever “win”.
Danah Boyd (2006) says, “Adults often worry about the amount of time that youth spend online, arguing that the digital does not replace the physical. Most teens would agree. It is not the technology that encourages youth to spend time online – it’s the lack of mobility and access to youth space where they can hang out uninterrupted. In this context, there are three important classes of space: public, private and controlled. For adults, the home is the private sphere where they relax amidst family and close friends. The public sphere is the world amongst strangers and people of all statuses where one must put forward one’s best face. For most adults, work is a controlled space where bosses dictate the norms and acceptable behavior.”
So for a socially active teenager seeking their peers acceptance and companionships, social media outlets online are “safe” physical places where they cannot get themselves into any means of physical harm. So my question to this generation of parents would be, why has this parental “stranger danger” effect continued into their teenagers lives promoting and highly contributing to the mass usage of the online web and social media outlets. Where parents should be allowing their teenagers to experience things and get themselves into some trouble allowing for parental guidance and correction before that same teenager becomes an adult, sooner than not, where they’ll be experiencing those similar real life situations they were deprived of throughout their teenage youth. What’s so interesting about this article is the fact that it was published in 2006, while I was still a Junior High Schooler, but has more relevancy and accuracy in today’s social media world which could arguably be due to the increasing amounts of social media usage by our entire society not just the youth.
Boyd (2006) explains that, “While the potential predator or future employer don’t concern most teens, parents and teachers do. Reacting to increasing adult surveillance, many teens are turning their profiles private or creating separate accounts under fake names. In response, many parents are demanded complete control over teens’ digital behaviors. This dynamic often destroys the most important value in the child/parent relationship: trust.”
It’s sad that parents think they need to keep tabs on their child’s social media to maintain trust while most of those same parents do not trust their kids to attend a social gathering in fear of confronting physical harm or danger, avoiding anything that may negatively alter the way their child thinks. Teenagers think for themselves more than they should, restricting them from socially interacting with their peers in public venues will probably cause those teenagers to browse places or interact with others on the web that are more detrimental than any scenario that would occur at any teenage function.