Project 3 Justification Paper

Josie Tarr

Professor Kim Christen

4 May 2014

Project 3 Justification Paper

Hermione Goes to Court:

Project 3 Justification Paper

            For my final project, I decided to combine elements of Unit Three in a unique way. I wanted to try something I never had before, and the idea of fan fiction intrigued me. What sparked this idea was the reading from Madhavi Sunder’s article, “Everyone’s a Superhero: a Cultural Theory of ‘Mary Sue’ Fan Fiction as Fair Use.” According to Sunder, “Mary Sues re-imagine our cultural landscape, granting agency to those denied it in the popular mythology” (Sunder, 597). I felt like fan fiction, including a Mary Sue, would be a great way to expose the inadequacies of copyright law. I wanted to explain current copyright laws and their irrelevancy to our digital culture today. The argument of my project is that current copyright law (1) caters to the interests of companies who profit off of copyrighted works, and (2) hinders amateur creativity, which is crucial for the creation of our culture now.

            To gain an understanding of my argument, we must first examine what culture is. In "RIP:

 A Remix Manifesto” by Laurent LaSalle, our current culture is one where “people participate in the culture around us,” and which acts “as an expression of what came before” (LaSalle). Thanks to the technology available to those with Internet access, the creative process has become more important than the product; consumers are now creators (LaSalle ). In other words, it is fairly easy to take content around us and use it to create something new. The only problem is, according to copyright, these products are known as adaptations—and are illegal (UK Copyright Service). According to Chander and Sunder, culture is understood as "traveling, engaging in both internal and external dialogue along the way" (Sunder 624). Culture is not a fixed thing, and thus the meaning of created things evolves over time as it evolves. Copyright law has simply not evolved along with our digital culture.

            Read/Write (RW) culture, discussed by Lawrence Lessig in “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy,” 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 (Lessig 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" (Lessig 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.

           Next: what is copyright? 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" (Lessig 23). Sousa believed that the part of culture "where commercial entities profited from creative works needed to be regulated more" (Lessig 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). But as LaSalle points out, how can we create new culture if we can’t build on and take from the past?

This is where my fan fiction comes in. I decided to use the Harry Potter book series, mostly because the series takes place in recent history (the 90s and early2000s). I discovered that the Harry Potter world is the perfect stage for studying copyright law because most of the technology available to us would be available to the HP characters. Part of what makes effective fan fiction is drawing from the existing world of the piece (in this case, Harry Potter) and making your own work a believable part of that world. To make sure I got all my spells, names, and content right, I consulted the Harry Potter Wiki (www.harrypotter.wikia.com). To include a Mary Sue, the female character Hermione is the main character of my story. In the books, she is the smartest friend, the one that often saves the day, but is only a supporting character. She tends to know everything and gets exceedingly good grades in all her studies. Hermione is a “figure serves to contest popular media stereotypes of certain groups,” in this case, sampling/remixing music artists (Sunder 599). The plot of my story is fairly straightforward: Harry, Ron, and Hermione (wizards and a witch studying magic at the Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry) want to start a band to win a contest. To win, Ron decides they should make a band that makes music that is popular with Muggles (non-wizards, ordinary people), which is remixing and sampling. This type of music hasn’t “hit the wizard scene”, yet. The trio creates a band using songs from a currently famous artist, Deadmau5; they get famous and then get sued by that artist. Hermione elects to go to court, knowing that she (more so than Ron or Harry) has a chance against the artist’s deep-pocketed and experienced lawyers. She studies up before the trial, becoming as familiar as possible with copyright and fair use law.

            In this portion of the story, I explain all of Hermione’s sources of information, as well as what she learns from them. The sources I found for this crucial section of my fiction are the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) (www.ipo.gov/uk), the UK copyright law site (www.copyrightservice.co.uk), and Teaching Copyright (www.teachingcopyright.org). 

            For example: Hermione learns that “fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis” according to the UK’s copyright laws (UK Copyright Services). One of the restricted acts, according to UK copyright law, is adaptation, which is exactly what she, Ron, and Harry have done. They adapted Deadmau5’s music and even sold it for a profit to other students (UK Copyright Services). Hermione realizes this is a big error in the Muggle (non-wizarding) community. Although she and her lawyer try to explain how Hermione wasn’t taught copyright law (the excuse is homeschooling because the wizarding world must be kept secret), the jury still finds her guilty of “Criminal liability for making, dealing with or using illicit recordings” (IPO).

            Deadmau5’s  lawyers have enough money to conduct (and perhaps even fabricate) research showing how Hermione’s band’s min-album Unicorn Blood has hurt Deadmau5’s sales. This directly violates copyright laws, which state that it is illegal to import into the UK “otherwise than for his private and domestic use” (IPO). Hermione, taking the blame for creating the band so her friends wouldn’t get in trouble, eventually gets the maximum sentence for copyright infringement, which is £50,00 and 6 months in prison (section 107(1)(a)+(b), Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, IPO).

            This fan fiction is an in-depth examination of why Hermione’s remix band could be found guilty of copyright infringement in court, even despite studying and knowing the unclear laws currently in place. Hermione, Ron, and Harry, in an attempt to contribute to and be a part of the Muggle Read/Write culture, make a band that adapts songs and makes them new. They bring their remixed songs to the Wizarding world, as well as spread them around the Muggle world for many to appreciate. In doing so, they accidentally wake the monster that is copyright. Hermione takes on the responsibility as the smart, sassy character that she is, becoming even better-read than her attorney. However, not even Hermione as the Mary Sue character can triumph in court against a rich and famous artist. My goal with this project was to leave readers with the sense that most copyright infringers are simply ignorant of the convoluted copyright and fair use laws in place today. By reading this story, readers get a clear idea of what copyright infringement is, how inadequate copyright law is, and how these laws deter creativity and content creation in today’s digital culture.

Works Cited

Dame-Boyle, Alison. Teaching Copyright. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Web. 4 May 2014.

            Harry Potter Wiki. May 2014. Web. 4 May 2014.

Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Department for Business, Innovation & Skills.10 Feb 2009.      Web. 4             May 2014.

Keller, Daphne. From Paul Miller's Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture. MIT     Press.             2008. Web. 4 May 2014.

LaSalle, Laurent. RIP: A Remix Manifesto. Video. 4 May 2014.

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. 2010.                                Video. 4 May 2014.

Sunder, Madhavi. Chander, Anupam. Everyone’s a Superhero: A Cultural Theory of ‘Mary Sue’ Fan                 Fiction as Fair Use. Web. 4 May 2014.

UK Copyright Service. UK Copyright Law. 2000-2013, Copyright Witness Ltd. Web. 4 May 2014.

Unofficial Post: Online Data Collection is Coming to Attention...Again

It appears that someone in the White House has finally taken an interest in the privacy of it's online citizens.

Who: John D. Podesta
What: A recently-released report that "recommends requiring private companies to disclose the kind of information they gather from their customers online" (NY Times).

In other words, someone has noticed that companies are using the data they receive from customers logging in (and clicking those pesky Terms of Use without reading them). Like, really using it. These techniques, "mosaic techniques," allow companies to pretend like they're collecting anonymous data from large groups of users, when they're really finding out what you're doing online. So they can send you ads for bras when you went online bra-shopping that one time.

Or maybe you found an app on Facebook that lets you fight dragons and stuff. Well now they know you like that stuff; expect to see RPG/MMO images cluttering the margins of your internet browser.

Mr. Podesta asks a really good question, "Does the Terms of Use process still allow us to control and protect our privacy as the data is used and reused?" Well, John, you may be onto something.

And companies don't like it. After all, we expend so much data, cutting off or restricting this supply to companies might seriously damage their sales. Oh dear, what a shame.

The report recommends extending American privacy rights to foreigners, and "notes the risk of dat being used to discriminate against some Americans in new ways that are otherwise prohibited by civil and consumer rights legislation".

Yikes! It seems like people are catching on to the idea that online tech. available these day is just another tool-- and tools have always been used to promote the status quo.

But wait, there's more. It appears that the "sensible" guidelines of 2012, which were administration recommendations regarding online privacy. They were shot down:

"The task of translating concepts like transparency and accountability into legislation seemed complex and time-consuming, and were opposed by business groups. Few members of Congress showed interest."

Great, so business owners (probably Disney, dangit!!) didn't like the idea of restricting their access to our information, and IGNORED THE ISSUE. Wow. This is such a good example of showing who really has our best interest in mind (or not!).

Hopefully, this time around will be more successful. I'm not sure what it will take for Podesta's recommendations to become more than that, but I hope it happens, and soon.

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

Official Post #3 (Social Media and the Information Age)

Information is:

·         Food

·         Input-Output

·         Data

·         Always biased

·         Power (remember the 6 companies mainly in charge)

·         Always mediated (affected by the media it comes through, there is no such thing as neutral info)

Social Media is:

·         an interactive web platform

·         connecting people

·         communal value

·         online mob mentality

·         the best way to reach most Americans these days (87% of U.S. adults have acess to the Internet)

·         SOCIAL NETWORK SITES

o   “as web-based services that allow individuals to (1)

construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate

a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse

their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and

nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd)

§  Twitter, Google+, YouTube, Facebook, etc.

 

Social Activism is:

·         intentionally identifying/fixing injustice

·         valuable online information circulation

o   ex: PETA actually wins over supporters against certain products that abuse animals, by using SM)

·         intentional social changes

·         participatory civic value

·         Gladwell believes it’s putting yourself in high-risk situations (his example: being chased with clubs all afternoon)

·          

Online Activism is:

·         activism reinvented to fit modern technology

o   activism has always used the available means for addressing social injustice; these days, the web can be such a tool (and a very successful one at that)

·         pursuing social justice via the Web/ digital campaigns for social causes

·         involvement in activism “at home” (made possible by the web)

Slactivism is:

·         what Andresen calls “taking easy  social actions in support of a cause.”

o   includes liking things on Facebook, sharing posts, signing petitions, etc.

o   NOT what Gladwell refers to as “real” activism

·         more effective than Gladwell lets on, according to Mirani

o   for example, see the Twitter coverage of the Sudan Revolts, otherwise hushed by other forms of the media

·         viewed both negatively and positively by different parties (see Gladwell and Mirani for example)

·         can actually “get things done”

o   ex: In Canada, PETA got locals to sign petitions online and shut down a local roadside menagerie sighted for neglect

What activism looks like in 2014:

·         connecting and collaborating through online platforms

·         larger activist events taking place thanks to organizing tool of the Web and social media

·         a new hybrid breed of activism (combining online activism with offline activism)

An Article on the Future of the Web

I was looking at the New York Times website, where they have an interesting and handy section dedicated to "Technology." I found this article there.
Apparently, the Web is turning 25 tomorrow (Wednesday, 3/12/14)!
The creators, naturally, have a lot to say about their hopes and fears for the Web.
What I found highly interesting is that Mr. Berners-Lee, and the other creators, "worry that companies and telecommunications outlets could destroy the open nature that made it flourish in their quest to make more money" (NY Times).
This just shores up my idea that huge mega-companies (and there's only 6 mega-ones in the world, as we learned in class) will exploit the web for purely capitalist reasons. I mean, that's what corporations do, isn't it? Make money?
Reading the article further, it becomes clear that there is good news. Nobody panic. The Web is currently where "every minute, billions of connected people send each other hundreds of millions of messages, share 20 million photos and exchange at least $15 million in goods and services" (NY Times). So the Web doesn't completely belong to Disney and Nestle and other companies.
Does that mean sites like Facebook and YouTube haven't succumbed to adverting and other clear indicators of the dollar sign? Absolutely not! There are ads you must watch before you can view most YouTube videos, these days.

Mr. Bernes-Lee (writer of the first web page editor and web browser) has a warning for us web users. He warns us that there is a current battle around "network neutrality," which is essentially the idea that Web content should flow freely through the internet regardless of creator/origin.

Obviously, big companies like Apple will want to use the Web to do what they do best ($$$$$), which will turn the internet into anything but a neutral medium.

"The openness of the web is really, really important," say Mr. Bernes-Lee, and I tend to agree with him. “It’s important for the open markets, for the economy and for democracy" (NY Times).

This seems to be a bigger issue than I thought. If "large telecommunications companies took control of the web," the repercussions for web-users could be astounding. Mr. Barnes-Lee and others worried about the future of the net will attempt to spread awareness of this issue in the near-future.

Already, we just have to look around to see how the 6 huge corporations are infiltrating our lives, whether it be through ad campaigns or the prolific use of products they sell. I, for one, do not want the Web to lose any of its dwindling neutrality. As a lowly American citizen with no hopes (really) of ever becoming CEO of a mega-corporation, the commercialization of the Web is a scary thought. Control the Web, and these companies will have access to over 87% of the American adult population.

It all rather sounds like a plot from a scifi novel. The web has been invented, now we must wait for it to gain users as a neutral medium before swooping in and making it ours!! Muhahahaha!!

No thank you.

The Importance of the Meme

We've seen them everywhere.
Memes.
They frequent social network sites like flies frequent smelly corpses. Okay, maybe that's a bit of a dramatic simile, but you get the picture.

I absolutely love memes. Sometimes you have to shift through the crappy, unfunny ones, but eventually it's possible to find the perfect meme for any situation. Seriously, any situation.
Given how easy it is to make a meme, virtually anyone can make one these days. And they're even easier to find than to make. So what do memes really say about us, the digital generations?
I found a great article by Sam Leith on Financial Times about this very topic. Click here to discover the possible implications of our wide usage of memes!
Cause, obviously, they're important. And only growing more popular. I mean, even my lovely neolithic mother knows what a meme is, these days.

 

Oh, the joys of being the in-group and understanding cultural references! I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse. At least it makes me laugh.

Or cringe...