"Privacy"

In class i found that lots of people felt that in order to protect your "privacy" on Facebook, they set an enormous amount of security settings that restricted specific people from seeing specific things on their profile. I had a great deal of difficulty trying to understand the reasoning behind doing such a thing. This is an issue for me for a numerous amount of reasons.
The first reason would be that I feel that the whole point of a social network is to be open to the public and to share as much as possible to attract as many people as possible. I figure that if your going to go through such great lengths to hide things then maybe they should not be put up on Facebook. For people who want to be completely invisible to people who they do not know on Facebook, why be apart of the network at all.
My next big misunderstanding with the point of people who want to hide themselves and their information on social network sites is because I don't know why people misinterpret what it means to be apart of a social network. Only being visible to friends that you already know and have in the physical world is pointless. There are many opportunities to communicate with the people you already know on other platforms such as telephone, texts, and gatherings. A social networks purpose is to unite people from many different platform in life, allow them to get to know each other through conversation, and ultimately use each other for special purposes.
I believe that people have misused the social network sites for entertainment purposes and this is the reason why so many people find a need to hide information. These sites are not to be public displays of what is going on in your everyday life, tell others where you are at the current moment, or to post pictures that show you in your most intimate states. it is strictly for networking, hence the name social network.
People need to reevaluate what their intentions are when joining sites. If your intentions are to be fun, playful, and to share intimate things with only the people you know then maybe Facebook is not the site to join.

My Reflection on Gaming Article

In a recent article in the New York Times, Motion Sensitive, the author proposes that the new remote-less games are evolving to become more like art.  I argue his point because I feel that art and video games are not experienced in the same way.  They don't evoke the same thought process or use the cognitive skills.  

The author is claiming that when using your body you become more fully engaged in the game, emotionally, physically and intellectually.  While I agree that removing the remote controller from the process and engaging the sense kinetic sense of movement, the player becomes more involved in the game and the experience they are having.  By making the actions of a virtual player imitate the actions of a player the game becomes more realistic, more active and thus a more complete experience.  

I don't think that it makes the game or the person more creative.  The experience of art is engaging because it is a humans form of expression and art includes creation, presentation, being perceived by someone else, and evoking something in the viewer.  The experience with games is that it takes a person out of reality, and them into a virtual reality.  What is lacking in the video game that is present in theater is that there is a human connection with an actor or musician on stage that can not be replicated virtually.  By making the persons actions control the virtual reality we are taking a step out in between being social and engaged in the real world, verses being engaged in a virtual world of a video game or game culture.

It is frightening to me to think that humans are afraid of creativity and that they need to be told what to do in the creative act through parameters of rules to the game and objectives to achieve.  This seems counterintuitive to being a creative person engaging in a creative experience. This is why I would disagree with the statement in this article that "as games become more real, the experience of them is bringing people closer to art." I recommend you check out the article and let me know what your opinion is on this matter. 

Cyber Monday

Today before class cyber monday was brought up and some people were not aware of what it was. For those of you who don't know what it is, it is a basically like black friday but for the internet. I read an article on yahoo this past weekend that explained the details of the event and why it came to be. Just like black friday, most sites offer extreme mark downs on most of their products and some coupons. The reason I am linking it to class is because some of the sites are offering their coupons and promotional codes via twitter, facebook and other social media sites. The only way to receive the best prices are through these sites. Therefore, a traditional shopping event such as black friday is now turning into an online event with extra discount perks via social media.

Is facebook the new boob-tube?

Does everyone remember getting up on Saturday mornings, only to be glued to the "boob tube" for hours on end? It drove some of our parents to the books, asking themselves how they failed at being stimulating mothers and fathers who were proud parents of active kids. Now, I see my sister race to her computer upon waking, to check up on what her friends are up to for the day. The hum of the computers in my house along with the little facebook chat "pops" have drowned out the cereal commercials.

In a recent article from the huffington post, the author explores exactly how damaging Facebook is to children and adolescents. According to some other studies that have been conducted, many Facebook users are seen as narcissistic. Obviously, this isn't what any parent wants associated with their own children. The article presents ways to build a connection with children that doesn't involve them accepting mom's friend request.

I found it interesting that social media is beginning to have a strong effect on people at such a young age. With TV, parents have somewhat control because it communicates in a linear way--there is no interaction between cartoon and child; the parent only needed to shut off the TV. Now, Facebook is what defines the social life of young people--it is a social determinant and another stress to add to the many that puberty brings.

The article encourages parents to seek out their child's' passions and hobbies through active participation in their lives. They must give recognition that Facebook is an important part of their kids' lives, but it mustn't rule the day. The article states that although Facebook isn't something that can be "shut off" and parents must accept the fact that it is a major influence on lives, it is a reflection on many age-old childhood insecurities. The main issue is that Facebook is like "catnip" to attention-starved kids. This can lead to dangerous situations with online predators and forming an online identity that is seemingly more important than a real-life identity which is especially essential in younger aged people.

Will videoconferencing replace the telephone?

http://www.macworld.com/article/155988/2010/11/videoconferecing.html?lsrc=rss_main

Here is an interesting article on that I found on video calling this weekend from Macworld.

We all know that there is a great deal of hype surrounding the video calling phenomena these days. With the newest mobile devices supporting video calling technology, it seems like video calling is bigger than ever. Apple's FaceTime technology, Sprint's mobile video calling, Skype...however, is it truly effective?

What I mean by this, is it at a state where it's second nature?

For example, when you want to call someone, you just dial their number in that moment and try to reach them. But when you want to video call someone, is it second nature? Do you just try and reach them to video conference? From my own experience, I usually plan a video call ahead of time. It's not really second nature - the technology is pseudo limited.

This is what the article talks about. That while FaceTime is very cool, and probably the easiest video calling protocol to date, it has its technological limits (only on 3G) and the concept of video calling is still very new to the general public. It has yet to reach the point of being universal accessible (like a standard phone call).

Thoughts? How long until video calling will be standard practice by all? Will it? What needs to happen in order for it to become more universal and second nature?

Online Activity: Censored

Our class today really had me thinking that in today's world, anything you do or say, especially online can be used against you. Like we mentioned in class today almost everything you post on facebook can be retrienved/viewed. The part that really upset me about this is the fact that even if you delete something on facebook, it still stays in the system for a long period of time. When it comes to applying for jobs, I feel like this could really pose as an issue. To my understanding employeers could be be viewing information that was posted to a profile years prior and use that as a basis to decided whether or not someone will be hired for a job, which I really think is unfair, especailly since things can be so easily miscontrued online.

Privacy Talk

I know we've kind of said all there is to be said about this topic, but I figured I should use the blog to try to formulate my own opinion on the online/facebook/privacy craziness.

The way I see it, I have no idea why on earth anyone could possibly even try to think they deserve or are entitled to privacy on the world wide web. Nothing about the name implies privacy to me and I will forever go back to my logic- if you want complete privacy, buy a diary. Why would you ever use the world's most vast and complex network of connections and shared information to do things that you expected to be private?

I can't possibly understand the "our privacy should be regulated by the government" argument. I'm pretty sure, as mentioned in class, that the government has way bigger issues to be dealing with. We, as users of this Internet, have our own personal responsibility to monitor ourselves. No one demanded that we sign up for facebook and then post pictures of ourselves getting drunk with our friends. So if you choose to do that, be ready for the consequences that may (or may not) ensue.

For some, the problem here is that it really and truly is a personal priority that friend A, B, and C see these pictures of their crazy weekend. If that's the case, why don't you print out the picture and show them in person? This is not at all a burden for our expression of ourselves. If there are people in this world solely relying on social networking sites to express who they are, I'm nervous.

My point isn't some narrowminded claim that all facebook users are idiots for putting up questionable pictures and deserve to see repercussions for doing so. Moreso, I'm trying to say that if there are repercussions or if your "privacy" is disregarded, maybe you should find another outlet for expression. There are plenty of other ways to go about this that aren't rooted in a public medium.

I think a lot of people in class had the same sort of ideas because I remember a few people saying that they are strict with what they do and don't post because they understand that the Internet is not (and was never intended to be) a completely private place. But does anyone disagree? Of course this is just my opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's!

Facebook Information Download?

All the talk about privacy and Facebook made me examine my own personal settings. One day after class I went through the tedious process of going through and customizing my privacy settings. A lot of things that I allowed "friends of friends" was changed to "friends only." Also, I deleted people that I didn't really know personally.

I felt a lot better afterwards but while in the process I discovered something new. Facebook gave me the opportunity to download all of my information posted on the site. I didn't think twice and requested to download my information. In a couple hours I received an email from Facebook with a zip drive of all my info posted on the site, dating back to 2007 when I was a senior in high school. I took a stroll down memory lane when looked at my old statuses and wall posts. I was glad I was able to see what I posted because over the years you tend to forget a lot along the lines of Facebook.

What startled me was that Facebook has access to all this information that they are quite possibly showing to other people. This wasn't news to me, but actually downloading the file to my computer put in perspective how accessible my information really is.

Another thing, I know people that get their accounts hacked often or have other people that know their login information. A major setback of this download feature is that someone can hack into your account, type in your password and download YOUR information. That's scary to me, but since Facebook isn't as private as we may have thought it was, we should keep a better eye on our accounts.

Here's a video that shows you how to access this feature.

Privacy

In class we read an article titled, "Price of Facebook Privacy? Start Clicking". This article is about the complex privacy settings on Facebook. Recently Facebook has revised its privacy policy, which makes users have to opt out if they want to keep information private. I haven't done anything like this, but I heard it is very extensive and you have to click a bunch of things to get your privacy to where you want it to be. "Facebook users who hope to make their personal information private should be prepared to spend a lot of time pressing a lot of buttons", said the author Nick Bilton. I want to know why they made it so complicated to be private? Do they want to you to be exposed to the third party websites that they are now showing personal data to? Isn't it more dangerous to not be private? I know it is a social site, but you don't have to be social with the entire world. I know I just want to be social with the people I am friends with, not random people I have never met before. Or maybe it's a good thing they make it complicated, so people can opt out certain things and be very specific with to whom they want to be social with. I think there is pros and cons to either side. It could be good to be thorough, or it could be annoying and a waste of time. I guess I haven't really made up my mind yet what I think about it...

TEDxPhilly

We've seen a number of great TED talks this semester. Well, today is TEDxPhilly. Check out the program. Watch the live stream.

TEDxPhilly Program Schedule

8:00AM to 9:30AM: Registration; Music by Carlos Santiago 9:30AM to 11AM: Session One — Systems & Society 11:00AM to 11:30AM: Break; Music by Dallas Vietty's Musette Project11:30AM to 12:50AM: Session Two — Culture & Meaning 1:00PM to 2:30PM: Lunch; Music from Gina Ferrera, Cheap Dinosaurs and Electricity for Progress 2:30PM to 3:45PM: Session Three — Incredible Machines 3:45PM to 4:15PM: Break; Music by Philadelphia Youth Orchestra 4:15PM to 5:30PM: Session Four — Between the Ears 6:00PM to 8:30PM: Reception @ University of the Arts; DJ set by Pink Skull

The Ethics of Content Theft in a Digital World

Thought this piece was particularly relevant to our most recent class discussion:

"Digital media is a non-rival good; to take it for free is not theft but evasion of cost, and evasion of cost is a fundamental tenet of economic behaviour (with the possible exception of those with more money than sense); economic behaviour is not rational but emotional, and basing your response to a change in the underpinnings of an industry’s economy on the hope that you can stop human beings behaving in the ways they always have done is to doom yourself to failure. Successful businesses work out ways to monetise desire, but business models do not last forever; if they did, there wouldn’t be an internet (or cars, or electricity, or, or, or). QED."

New FB

So I was checking my AOL email...(I know lame who does that anymore) and I saw a news article about changes being made to Facebook. They seem to change their settings and ways of communicating a lot to keep users interested. Most of the time we all get annoyed and just adapt. I think that they don't want to be the next myspace, and I hope they don't become it. Their new form of communication will bring everything from chat, messages, and text to one folder for convenience. No more messages sent by friends without your knowledge after you sign off. No more leaving a conversation and missing important information because you left your computer. Everything will be sent to your phone or your "email" so that all of your conversations can be contained in one area. This system seems really involved but cool. I would love to have all of my conversations in one place to reference what I had said in other forms of media. Check out the link and the video on the page.

Privacy

The class discussion about privacy really got me thinking about how much we really share about ourselves online. Last night I received an email from my dad saying hmmmmm with a picture of me making a weird face with one of my friends. It was one of my profile pictures from facebook, but I thought that I had taken it down. Some how my dad gained access to this picture. If he became friends with anyone that I was friends with, he could see more of my profile and this goes for anyone online. Our social network sites aren't as secure as we think. Over the summer, I worked in my mom's HR department as basically the all around secretary. She talked to me about all of the people that she hires and how they check their facebooks and run searches on all of their potential employees. I felt weird about this because I have a facebook, but it does make sense. These profiles are online, anyone can see them. A company doesn't want to hire someone that will blacken their name, they want a good upstanding citizen to work for their company. The information posted online can be accessed by anyone. Facebook has it's privacy controls, but who's to say that the company that is interviewing you won't try to do what my dad did and befriend someone to gain a mutual connection to be able to see more of your profile. The thing that I guess I want to say is, if you post something online, expect to see it elsewhere. Pictures and information that people have access to can be saved and posted on different sites. We have to be extremely conscious of our activity. It may be a breech on our "creativity", but for our reputations, it is imperative that we watch ourselves.

New Girl Talk!

New Girl Talk album, All Day, available to down for free. Some notable info:

All Day is intended to be listened to as a whole.
It is broken up into individual tracks only for easier navigation.
This album is a free download.
Girl Talk thanks all artists sampled. A full list will be posted in the future.

All Day by Girl Talk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license. The CC license does not interfere with the rights you have under the fair use doctrine, which gives you permission to make certain uses of the work even for commercial purposes. Also, the CC license does not grant rights to non-transformative use of the source material Girl Talk used to make the album.

Facebook in the work place

With in the past week CNN ran a story about whether or not Facebook can get you fired or not. They say ranting about your boos and the workplace through your social media sites such as Facebook, twitter, or myspace can end up getting you the boot.

They gave seven tips on how to prevent from getting fired due to your social media outbursts. They were: Think before you post, be picky about who you friend, do it on your own time and computer, watch what you post at home, keep the dialogue positive, figure out privacy settings, and learn your employee rights.

Although I do think these tips are helpful and do not think people should be airing all of their dirty laundry through there social media, it worries me that companies have the right to fire you over a personal website. I am not one for sharing all my dirty details over the internet but I do think I deserve the right to have privacy outside of the work place. I do not think employers should have the right to fire you over something that is not a work related site. They should be able to have access to it but only with the persons consent and they should not have the right to fire someone over the contents of their site.

After all it is personal and should not have any link to work and the work atmosphere.

So Limewire's dead. What's next?

Recently Limewire was ordered to shut down it's file-sharing service. Has anyone been affected by the RIAA's victory? I personally wasn't affected by it, but I'm curious to know how this will affect illegal download as a whole. From what I understand is that people have started buying some music but I feel that it will have no longevity. Some people may be waiting for the next big thing, but it may be here already. I've personally been going from program to program since 7th grade ( I was 11, not im 21). That's ten years of living as a criminal (LOL). I think once people find a new method of getting music for free, those who have started to do the right thing and legally download their music will eventually revert back to the pirate life. I don't intend on putting ideas in people's heads but there are sooooo many options OTHER than Limewire or peer-to-peer sharing programs that can get you music for free. RIAA has a long road to travel if they think they are stopping our generation.

What experts are saying...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Infringement vs. Inspiration (& some Jay-Z)

I wouldn't call it infringement. It's inspiration. I definitely think that the future builds on the past and successfully -- especially with music. Yes, Jay-z is the best rapper alive, and a lot of his greatest songs sample "the past." Pablo Picasso said, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal." It's true. Even related to design, which I do, I get inspired by other people's work and I might imitate one's idea and make it my own. I get inspired. But, back to music. Jay is my favorite rapper--my favorite artist and he has a song with Cold Play, called Most Kingz, and it is one of my favorite songs. In a video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoeAgIQFKhU&feature=related), as a promotion for his book Decoded, Jay breaks down that the song was "Inspired by Basquiat," a painting that says "Most Kingz get their heads cut off" and so the song is based on this inspiration. Jay - Z says, "Yes, I'm inspired by life and all sorts of things. You could say something right now and it would inspire me to write a song or something to happen. Most Kingz just happened to be inspired by a Basquiat drawing. ... It's powerful. Just the statement in itself lends itself for a song ..."

Does Jay-z owe this painting money? Is it infringement? or just inspiration!?

Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPdD4pubSpo&feature=related (It's Great.)

DJ Earworm vs Girl Talk

 Here is an article about DJ Earworm...http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-25/entertainment/dj.earworm_1_mashup-songs-copyright-law?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

Why is it that Girl Talk is under so much copyright infringement where another mash up artist DJ Earworm isn't? DJ Earworm is a mashup artist where he has made remixes of the music that has hit the top billboards of the year. He has successfully made billboard mash ups for three consecutive years using music created by other artists. I personally love his mash ups and I think he is very talented in doing what he does. In the article, he says how "Mashup artists are usually able to skirt copyright laws under the 'fair use' doctrine of copyright law". Yet, Girl Talk is being accused to stealing music. There is a high demand of DJ Earworm in events and he is legally approved. Girl Talk at the same time is in high demand from the music lovers, doing something very similar to of DJ Earworm. So why should he stop supplying what there is so much demand for?

Here is the 2009 mash up from DJ Earworm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNzrwh2Z2hQ

Marcel Duchamp: The original remix master

I feel like much of the recent conflict involving copyright issues in the music industry is a little bit outdated. It seems that these very discussions have already taken place in the visual art world almost a hundred years ago. Marcel Duchamp was an avant garde artist in the early 1900s, closely related to the Dadaist movement. In 1917 he submitted his piece, Fountain, to a gallery that swore to accept every piece submitted. It was impossible to get rejected from this art gallery. But Duchamp's Fountain got rejected on the grounds that it couldn't be considered art. It was just a urinal turned 90 degrees and signed. And yet today it is recognized as one of the most influential works in art history.
To Duchamp, it was the idea behind a piece that made it art. And by taking a random object and simply altering the idea behind it, he created an entirely new artistic work. Certainly the original designers of that urinal could try to sue for millions of dollars. But they would NEVER win!
All artists rip ideas off from one another. That's the nature of art. So how is Girl Talk different from Duchamp (besides being far less cool, in my opinion)?

Read more about Duchamp on Wikipedia. He's a cool guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

Who owns the rights?

This video on youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs1bG6BIYlo&feature=player_embedded
is an awesome remixed beat with a Disney Classic in the video, we all can recognize "Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs". So the question that comes up, is this copyright infringement. This video takes the voices and actions and remixes them to turn it into something completely different. This could easily be concieved as copyright infringment because he is taking Disney's work and remixing it. Essentially these are still Disney characters even though this is not how they would appear in a Disney video. This guy has done a few remixes before and has had them taken down, if you read some comments, because it is copyright infringement. The remix is very good and I am not saying this to take away from it. I am just using this as a classic example, this is his own work, he clearly worked very hard on this. However, this is nothing more than stealing, what he is doing is no better than someone putting another title on a movie and trying to pass it as his own. No matter what the sound or remix is, this is still "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", and that is Disney's property.

News in the Jammie Case

Did you guys see this?

RIAA Wins Another Pyrrhic Victory in File-Sharing Case

"In her third trial, Minnesota resident Jammie Thomas-Rasset -- whose fame has extended well beyond the proverbial 15 minutes -- was once again slapped with a fine for sharing 24 songs. On Wednesday, the jury awarded US$1.5 million in damages to Capitol Records. That's $62,500 for each of the 24 songs Thomas-Rasset illegally shared through Kazaa in 2006."

Greg Gillis himself...

When talking about Girl Talk a lot of issues arise. Many people think what he does is wrong because it is against copyrighting laws, and many say it's nothing like the copyrighted material so it can't be against the law. Has anyone stopped to ask Greg Gillis about what he thinks? Here is an interview with him explaining what he does. At one point, he calls it "passing down and recycling music", which is a good way to put it. If everyone likes a certain song and the song was a great success, why not use part of it again in a different song? It is pleasing your audience, that's what it's all about. Check out the interview. He is an innocent, intelligent man who wants to have fun creating music for people to enjoy. It's a hobby for him. Would you want people to tell you to stop doing your hobby? I wouldn't, especially if it wasn't harming anybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjHj-f6gLkI&feature=related

Girl Talk and mixing music

Girl Talk is a great example of how every generation of music influences the future generations. He takes pieces of songs and remixes them into his own creations. Some people say that what he is doing is copyright infringment and he is just stealing from other artists. I would agree that sampling is a form of stealing, but if you are going to pick on him then you have to go after almost every artist in the music industry. Lady Gaga for example has put a modern spin on Madonna, much of her style and music is based off of Madonna. Kanye West who makes some of the best beats in the music industry has sampled many verses and beats throughout his career. One of his most popular songs, Through the Wire, the beat is sampled right off of Chaka Khan's Through the Fire, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuWb8xtCsc&feature=related..check them both out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvb-1wjAtk4...The music industry is based off of this and sampling is an easy way to build the popularity of not only the new version, but the original as well. It also promotes awareness for the past, when new generations sample old songs, it brings awareness and appreciation of the artists of the past. It allows older artists to stay current for years and years. Jay-Z is a known for using alot of lines from the Notorious B.I.G, it is a way of keeping the memory of arguably the greatest rapper alive.
While Girl Talk takes alot of the music and remixes it to a brand new sound, he does use older songs and adds a modern twist to them. He can take a laid back song and turn it into a club banger, it makes him a lot of money. Should he have to pay for what he does? As of now the answer is no, but in the future, there could be a very serious law suit. He does in a way create his own music, but sometimes he pushes it a little far and should give some more credit to those who originally created it.

We are not the only ones talking about Kinect...

Check out this article from Wired: 5 things you didn't know about Mircosoft's Kinect

culture jamming

I feel this entire discussion about music, file sharing, copyrights, and "remixing" is very interesting and raises a lot of eyebrows. Now more than ever, it is looked down upon to take things from others. At the same time, our society tell us that it is healthy to be inspired by others and take their certain aspects and make them our own. We live during a time where inspiration comes in all shapes and forms, and it is amazing to be able to share ideas. With fashion, we are inspired by others. With writing, we are encouraged to cite others' thoughts and incorporate them with our own. But music... music is an entirely different issue.

With technology, music has become much more accessible than it was in the past. As opposed to spending $15 on a CD in which you only like 2 of the songs anyway, a free download of a song is only a click away. The emergence of illegal downloading and file sharing has almost become part of the norm. People download limewire of frostwire, and their entire music library can be accumulated in a matter of seconds. It is so easy to maintain songs nowadays but also so... illegal. And why is this? Why is it okay to copy fashion and other items, but not music? I personally feel it is more because of the recording companies than anything. Many of the music artists are just trying to get their songs out to the public, regardless of whether the consumer pays or not. These artists thrive from concert sales, merchandise, TV appearances, etc. Only a small portion of their salary comes from the CD sales anyway. It is the big bad recording companies who are against the act of file sharing. It is them who are losing profit.

It is crazy that in today's world, listening to music has become such an issue. Not even downloading it, but manipulating it and using it as well. GirlTalk, who takes samples from several songs and makes them his own, also faces lawsuits more and more every day. Although he is taking something that already exists and putting his own spin on it, it is still considered "stealing." All this talk about "stealing." The consumer steals, the up and coming DJ steals. Maybe if we made everything public to begin with, we would not be facing such a problem.

As big of a deal that this all seems to be, I doubt any of this music drama will be going anywhere soon. We are become more and more advanced every day. If we don't use limewire to download music for free, something else will come along. If GirlTalk isn't remixing music, someone else will. This is who we have become... and I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing.

Limewire!

In class we were asked if we downloaded media illegally. Well, whether or not you do- you most likely know what Limewire is. However, in case you don't Limewire is a free peer-to-peer sharing. In another class of mine, Introduction to Media and Society, we also keep up with a semester long blog- mine is focused on music. When I was creating a recent post I stumbled upon the current lawsuit against Limewire for copyright infringement. If you now visit Limewire's officially website (www.limewire.com), you cannot click around on the site, rather you see a white box stating, " LEGAL NOTICE: This is an official notice that LimeWire is under a court-ordered injunction to stop distributing and supporting its file-sharing software. Downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is illegal.". From my understanding, this is a recent charge of which I have found many article on. I was particularly struck by the article by the RIAA, claiming Limewire shouldn't be proud (Limewire employees are still stating that they are proud of what they did and hold no shame).  Here is the link to the article, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371667,00.asp.
Personally, I was expecting this to happen eventually and I am surprised it took this long. I believe that this incident may serve as a catalyst in the movement to reform digital media- as far as obtaining music, downloading, etc.

GirlTalk an Artist No More!

The conversation regarding GirlTalk begin to get very heated in our class discussion. Many people had many valid points about how GirlTalk is an artist because he creates new and interesting music, they also felt that just because his music is a mashup of music that is already out there and uses a computer, which is his instrument, does not take away from his title as an artist. I would beg to differ because those reasons are exactly why he would not be considered an artist.
I will not disregard the fact that what GirlTalk does is very interesting and new, but I do not see his originality. I find that him taking existing music and mixing it with various verses and beats from other existing music simply makes him a great mixer of music. He is not taking his own words and beats from his own songs and mixing them, but taking other artists songs and mixing them. Yes, it does take a certain skill to be able to manipulate and break up a song and add it in the correct spot with numerous other songs to make it all blend, but that it not the same skill as siiting down with a piece of paper and pencil and writing lyrics to a symphony, then taking those lyrics and putting notes from a piano to those words. We must not forget the immense amount of talent and time that it takes to hone a skill like this. I can say that it would take time to master the computer, but not in the same intensity and focus that it takes to master playing a song on the piano.
GirlTalk's music is very ground breaking and should not be frowned upon, but when comparing popular artist of the past and present, the difference is obvious and audible. It is true that all music stems from already existing music, but that it true for all creative industries. There would be no beginning if music didn't start somewhere. Some songs may have a line or two that are the same of an existing song, and others may have the same beat or tune, but that is common. What GirlTalk does is take very distinctive and already popular music and mixes them together. He does not manipulate the words of the song, or even the beat in any way. Therefore is he creating something new, a mashup, but not something completely new to the ear.
Maybe I'm just an old fashion girl, but music is original when it is your own words and symphonies creating inhabitating just a little bit of inspiration from the past. Not copying and pasting.