Official Post #6 (Unit 3 Takeaways)

Unit 3

What is culture? According to Chander and Sunder, culture is understood as "traveling, engaging in both internal and external dialogue along the way" (Chander). It's not a fixed thing, and thus the meaning of created things evolves over time as culture evolved. In "RIP: A Remix Manifesto," LaSalle states that "culture always builds on the past" and the past past always tries to control the future; culture is an expression of what came before. If we can't access the past, creating new things becomes nigh impossible.

 
Another good question is: what is privacy? I used to think privacy was being able to take a shower with no one watching, or even in the same room. Right now, most of us see privacy as a personal thing. Applied to a digital context, this concept seems obsolete. We've all heard about how the government monitors our lives through our technology. So we've acclimated to the idea that online/digital privacy is a thing of the past and just doesn't exist. "In contemporary democracies, privacy is recognized as a basic human right- the 'right to be left alone' " (Papacharissi). According to Papacharissi, privacy has actually become a luxury commodity, "raded, in exchange for access to social services...our personal information is exchanged as currency to gain digital access to friends" (Papacharissi). And who gains access to this private information? Cooperate entities, of course. The more time we spend online, the more personal information we depart, and the more access companies gain into our lives by using the tools at their disposal.

According to Lessig, copyright is "the mix of protections crafted by Congress to reward artists for their creativity by creating incentives for artists to produce great work" (23). Sousa believed that the part of culture "where commercial entities profited from creative works needed to be regulated more" (33). Today, copyright has become a tool used by companies (like Disney) to monopolize ideas (from the past or from other cultures), profit off of them, and then seal them away from being used by anyone else. Copyright is outdated in this digital age where remixing and sampling are people's way of creating media. It "has expanded hugely, particularly in the twentieth century, giving creators ever-greater powers to stop other people from making derivative or secondary uses of their work" (Keller).

Here is a lovely infographic about common-held myths of copyright:

The problem with this infographic, and copyright in general, is that it's too easy to break. The rules are unclear due to our digital tools and our use and creation of media and information. Copyright used to be an incentive; now it's just a bunch of laws you are probably breaking. Get ready to be sued. 

Read/Write (RW) culture is produced by amateur creativity; the "young people of the day" would add to this culture they read and heard by creating and re-creating the culture around them (28).

Read Only (RO) culture deals only with consumption, not creation.  Sousa, quoted by Lessig, feared that R/W culture would be displaced by this RO culture; however, we can see that this just hasn't been the case. A strong argument can be put forth that today we have expanded the idea of RW culture due to the vast digital tools at our disposal. Today we are re-creating and creating new forms of media from the old, in ways unimagined by those living in pre-internet times.

Amateur creativity goes along with the idea that non-professionals could "get together and sing" (32). This type of creativity creates RW culture, and needs to be left unregulated, according to Lessig. As we can see by the current copyright legal system, too much control can choke this creativity and cause remix music artists (for example) to go into hiding from legal battles they have no hope of winning.

 Authorship, according to Laurent LaSalle, maker of “RIP: A Remix Manifesto,” has been around since the printing press; copyright was first introduced as an incentive to create, and only lasted 14 years. Then everything went into the public domain.  This changed during the 20th century, when copyright was extended to the life of the author plus 75 years, mostly thanks to Disney. Suddenly, ideas that corporations monopolized became off-limit to the public for over a hundred years.

The problem is that it's almost impossible to create something that hasn’t been made before, that doesn’t draw from the past.

Fair use is an attempt to address the overly-strict and oftentimes non-applicable copyright laws. Under this doctrine, "criticism and parodies can copy a work without infringing the work's copyright" (Keller). Still, it is not a good legal tool for "appropriationist artists" in the court because 1) it's expensive, and 2) it's unclear what the court will consider fair use. In other words, If I were to use Harry Potter in a way Rowling didn't like, and she decided to threaten me, I would stop doing it because I just don't have enough money to afford fair use lawyers. She has millions to pit against me. This illustration shows how fair use in the legal system still caters to those who can afford the lawyers.

 Open and closed information circulation are bi-polarized ways of thinking about circulation. Either information must be shared to everyone, or no one at all. Right now, creative commons and fair use seem to be advocating the open polar, the idea that information should be accessible to everyone and everyone should be able to see/use it. The problem with this way of thinking is that not all information should be accessible to everyone; in some cultures, certain types of info belong to certain types of communal groups (men, women, male, female, elders, etc.). In a completely open culture, this information would not be protected and anyone could do what they wished with it, regardless of the "creator"-community's wishes.
A closed culture says that information should be completely protected and belongs solely to the creator. Copyright law as it is now seems to be wavering towards this polar. Originally, copyright was meant to be an incentive for authors; however, now it deters remixing and sampling and other forms of information circulation. Cultural appropriation is...
But why does information circulation have to be black and white? There must be a middle ground where creativity is fostered, yet ideas with cultural meaning can be protected and accessed in the way those communities deems appropriate according to its culture.

This middle ground can be referred to as ethical pluralism, which tries to land somewhere in the middle between ethical monism (right and wrong) and ethical relativism ("well, it depends..."). Pluralism says that some things can be right/wrong; we share some basic human values but can change throughout time. Social contexts also change. These values are NOT in conflict (you can be right and I can be right). This sort of thinking is dialogical, meaning that it accepts differences and universal norms, which change, at the same time. Thus, these terms can be negotiated.

Official Post #5 ("One More Time"...17 More Times)

The song I picked on www.whosampled.com is Daft Punk’s “One More Time,” officially released on the album Discovery in 2000. According to the website, this song was sampled in 17 songs.

My favorite version is by artist Machine Gun Kelly, called “LTFY (One More Time).” “One More Time” is used throughout the song, mostly as the beat, tune, and background vocals driving the song.
I think this song sampling is innovation and transformative. Firstly, the original “One More Time” is listed under the Electronic/Dance genre. The remix song is definitely a rap, given texture by the layers of the original song behind the words of the rap artist. Machine Gun Kelly has made sure people know the original song (it’s even in the title) and they brought the song into a different genre (Hip-Hop/R&B).

 Not only does the original song become a background layer for the new song, it has also been edited to fit the background of a rap. The beat has been transformed into something which clearly resembles the original yet is more stuttered, giving the whole song a remixed sound from the start. Anyone remotely familiar with the original song would instantly know this song is a remix. Without “One More Time,” this song would lose basically everything that makes it a unique and interesting rap, but it still remains that this song was edited and the rap lyrics written. Machine Gun Kelly reused a Daft Punk song, giving it the band’s own twist by messing with key elements of the song and adding new lyrics and meaning.

Another interesting thing to note about this remix is that the song’s content is vastly different from the original. The original song is about celebrating, dancing, and having a good time. Tis remixed version is about drinking, women (mostly referred to as “bitches”) and drugs. “One More Time” takes on a whole new, “hardcore” tone within the remix.

According to Laurent LaSalle, maker of “RIP: A Remix Manifesto,” authorship has been around since the printing press; copyright was first introduced as an incentive to create, and only lasted 14 years. Then everything went into the public domain.  This changed during the 20th century, when copyright was extended to the life of the author plus 75 years, mostly thanks to Disney. Suddenly, ideas that corporations monopolized became off-limit to the public for over a hundred years.

The problem is, it’s almost impossible to create something that hasn’t been made before, that doesn’t draw from the past.

According to copyright laws, authorship of “One More Time” belongs to Daft Punk. Unless Machine Gun Kelly gets permission to use this song in a commercial setting (the song can be bought in many places), it cannot legally resample this song. For a song which draws heavily on only one song, they probably did get permission legally. It wouldn’t be too difficult. However, a song with various other songs would have to track down each artist and ask them permission—which they could legally refuse for any reason. Copyright laws see authorship as being the creator of something, something that can be protected and sold, and stolen.
Lawrence Lessig, writer of “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy” says about copyright:

Copyright is, in my view at least, critically important to a healthy culture. Properly balanced, it is essential to inspiring certain forms of creativity. Without it, we would have a much poorer culture. With it, at least properly balanced, we create the incentives to produce great new works that otherwise would not be produced (xvi).

However, it’s clear that copyright laws needed to change with the evolution of the Internet and other technologies which allow us to “create and distribute music”—but they didn’t change (24).
LaSalle claims that with the increase of these technologies, the creative process became more important that the product, as consumers became creators. Originality, therefore, is not creating something that’s never been made before; it’s creating something new from things that were made before. Sousa, whom Lessig quotes, was a composer afraid of “that people would be less connected to, and hence practiced in, creating that culture” (27).

Lessig points out that Sousa believed “the part where commercial entities profited from creative works needed to be regulated more” (33). But there need be no laws against “getting together to sing,” a critical part of amateur culture (23).

So where does Machine Gun Kelly’s song come in? Is it an amateur, sing-songs-in-the-street type of work, or a work from which commercial entities profit? In the end, “the industries that now dominate the production culture” are in charge and have the final word (33).

I agree with Lessig in that permitting amateurs to create music our way, through remixing and sampling, will allow both sides to benefit. Why can’t we find a way to allow amateurs to create music, while also making sure the (filthy rich) music corporation earn money too? There must be a way we could all benefit; if we could find this middle ground, our culture expressed through music would become richer, freer, and truer.

Amendment to "Facebook Privacy: Why Does it Matter?"

So in my previous post, I claimed I didn't think Facebook privacy was much of an issue. Well I couldn't be more wrong. 

Part of the problem is the fact that I wasn't even aware of the status quo to which I've been subscribing. 

In class, Proffessor Kim challenged us to rethink our norms, our ideas of what is normal. I thought the idea of a privacy-free online world is just the way things are. I figured there was no use fighting the inevitable: that privacy has become a luxury commodity. 

But Kim showed me how this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't have to be in the future. 

After all, we've spent much of this course covering how twitter and slacktivism can impact the world.

As the Professor put it, "Social change happens on multiple levels and never evenly or quickly" (@mukurtu on Twitter). She's right of course. If people use the tools available, we can actively fight the encroachment of our privacy rights. 

Maybe, hopefully, someone higher up will listen. 

Personally, I hope to watch out for such polarized, open/close ideologies in the future. I need to protect myself from a very western, polarized way of thinking. It's easy to fall into thinking black and white, but many issues, especially ones in today's digital circles, are far from clear-cut.

So, back to the question: why does Facebook privacy matter?

Because it's another marker of our receding rights, rights which every person should hold without question. Our lives have become increasingly digital, but this does not give an excuse to companies and/or the government to infringe on our right to withhold information. We don't have to believe that this is how it's always been.

Official Blog Post #4 (Blue Amulet of the Sacred Eye)

Object Name: Sm. Blue Amulet, the Sacred Eye (Wadjet)

(c) the Smithsonian Institution

Community: Ancient Egyptian, County of Qena in Upper Egypt, Africa. The site name is Luxor.  

Creator: Ancient Egyptians. The actual creator of this object is unknown.

Owner: Donor name is John V. Hansen

Colonial history: This is an actual object consisting of an eye and eyebrow with two lines descending from the bottom of the eye. Today it has become a symbol with three different names. The symbol's names are the "Eye of Horus," the "Eye of Ra," and the "Wadjet." 

Specifically, the object from the Smithsonian museum we are focusing on is the Scared Eye of Wadjet. The three names are based off the meaning behind the symbol rather than the construction. Wadjet, “Whole One” or "Green One," is the patron of lower Egypt, and her sacred animal is a cobra. At first, she was worshiped as a local goddess, but soon became a patron goddess of Lower Egypt. Eventually, Wadjet became known as a personification of Lower Egypt, rather than a distinct goddess (J Hill). 

The symbol was frequently used in jewelry made of silver, lapis, gold, carnelian, porcelain, and wood.  The second name, "the Eye of Horus," is more commonly known. Horus, the Greek word for the Egyptian "Heru" ("the distant one"),  is a celestial falcon god whose eyes were supposed to be the sun and the moon. It is thought that the lines beneath the eye are falcon markings. There is a myth that there was a battle between Horus and Set where Horus’ eye was ripped out; they were restored by the moon god Thoth and each given the name ‘Wadjet”. The myth relates to the waxing and waning of the moon. The symbol was divided into six parts representing the shattering of Horus’ eye; the pieces were associated with the six senses of smell, sight, thought, hearing, taste and touch. The pair of eyes appear on Egyptian coffins, symbolizing that they will provide sight for the deceased, whose souls live for eternity(Dunn). The symbol is also one of protection and was commonly used in protective amulets worn by both the living and the dead. (Beyer).

Modern use: Clearly, bloggers and others all across the internet have posted information about Wadjet and Horus and other sacred beliefs belonging ancient Egyptian religion. Wikipedia, the biggest online open-source information pool, has it's own page on the Eye of Horus, which is accessible to anyone with internet.

Some people believe the eye of Horus is just a symbol of wisdom, protection and revelation. Thus, this symbol has become, perhaps  a commodity.

It can be found on jewelry:

This ring can be found on Ebay here.

 t-shirts:

This and many other varieties found on Zazzle.

 and other things available for purchase:

For those who like to drink from a protected cup, this one's labeled as "Cute Eye of horus Mug," found here.

·         The Eye of Providence, found on the US $1 bills, has an association with the symbol. However, the symbol on the $1 may only symbolize that the owner of the bill is under the eye of a power superior to them.

America would turn the Sacred Eye into something creepy and slap it on money... note the pyramid it rests on.

·         Illuminati Organization-There are conspiracies that link the symbol with the Illuminati organization, which is believed to be the underlying real power of many governments.

·         The symbol has been a very popular tattoo due to the meaning of protection, sacrifice, restoration and healing given to it.

Current Location: Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Anthropology of Archaelology

·         Pictures available on the Smithsonian website, taken of the object by the museum, belong to the Museum

Typing in "Blue Amulet of the Sacred Eye, Wadjet" into Google revealed only informational websites and commercial sites selling things featuring the Eye of Horus. This amulet, and the symbolism of the original amulets inscribed with "The Sacred Eye," have been commercialized and reduced in meaning to symbolize "cool" things, like protection and wisdom. Even if someone is aware of its sacred origins, nothing sacred or religious now pertains to this eye in its multiple commercial settings.

The Smithsonian claims that the donor (John V. Hansen), under copyright laws, technically has the rights to this object. Clearly, there are other pieces of ancient jewelry with the sacred eye on them; however, the Smithsonian only has two. It makes me wonder how something so old and sacred became so widely dispersed publicly...until I remember copyright laws.

These days, according to copyright, anyone could take the "Sacred Eye" and remix it, reuse, or turn it into a coffee mug. The creators of this symbol are long dead; in the reality of modern copyright, however, these ancient Egyptian creators never had rights to it. Hansen may have donated the amulet, but I doubt he ever had rights to the amulet either. But now it belongs to the Smithsonian Museum, somehow. Pictures taken of this object belong to the Museum, and if someone wanted that amulet for sacred reasons, they would have to ask permission of the museum. 

I Googled "do people still follow ancient Egyptian religion?" and found out that, yes, there are still some people who do. They call themselves Kemetics, and follow Kemeticism or Kemetism, a modern revival of ancient Egyptian religion. I wonder how all these commercialized Eyes floating around make them feel. Too bad there's really nothing they can do about the commercial, diluted meaning of the Eye of Horus; however, even if Kemetics wanted to reclaim this ancient amulet, the Museum is fully capable of saying no. The community of Kemetics, or even Egyptians wishing to preserve their ancestors' culture, can no longer have a say about sacred things such as the symbolism behind the Eye, because it is already posted all over the internet. Sadly, in the haste to get the info out there, no one thought about whether or not information on ancient Egyptian religion was important or sacred to people alive today.

Citations: 

• Ancient Egypt Online