It's difficult to write about something your ambivalent about. When I was in undergrad the papers I procrastinated on the most were the one's I either thought I could get away with writing at the last minute or papers I didn't feel strongly about. Introductions were always annoying but topics I didn't really feel strongly about...well those always got short shrift. In a not-so-good-way that's how I feel about my first week at law school.
I had a proper melt down at the end of my first day questioning the meaning of my life etc but the rest of the week I just felt ambivalent. I don't know if I really like it and I don't know if I'm meant to be doing this. I do the work I have to do (which is in fact just a lot of reading right now) but I mostly feel like I'm drifting through the work and the classes. I like most of my teachers and I mostly like most of the classes. My fellow students are mostly alright, though some are just completely obnoxious and make me want to do some kind of bodily harm to them. Like I said, I mostly just feel undecided about this whole thing. It's only been the first week and there's every chance I'll change my mind. Right now I'm just waiting for something to spark so that this drifting ambivalent feeling will end.
I will say this though: My roommates continue to be fantastic. I'm sure the honeymoon period will be over sooner rather than later, but they're straight forward about housekeeping things, they're smart and hardworking, and best of all I know if they have a problem with the way I act they'll tell me. So that's a bright spot in an otherwise hazy life.
27.8.11
16.8.11
The Drive and Boston
A quick summary of the drive up to Boston. It was semi-stressful (yay flash rainstorms on the New Jersey Turnpike!) and long. It was not interesting save for the flash rainstorm on the New Jersey Turnpike. Mom and I made it to Boston in one piece with only a minimal amount of getting lost (tricksy Boston roads are tricksy). I was more stressed out by unpacking and moving everything in than by the drive to be honest. And moving in and unpacking was incredibly stressful because I have no organizational skills or sense of space. Thankfully the major things (furniture, huge boxes) were taken care of by a moving company and Mom was there to help unpack a bit before leaving. Her leaving was incredibly difficult but was made up for in spades by the arrival of roommate from Buffalo (Melissa)'s friend arriving. This made getting to know Melissa ever so much easier in a weird way. Melissa is very cool and kind of reminds me of another friend of mine who's hung on despite my tendencies to not communicate with people since high school.
Boston. Boston has confusing roads and tiny tram cars. However I feel that by the end of this school year I'm going to like Boston at least as much as I like DC (though not as much as I love London.) There are more Dunkin' Donuts in this city than there are Starbucks in any other city which is kind of awesome. The law school is right across the way from a Dunkin' Donuts and there is one across the street from the T stop I get off of to get to school. That's how popular Dunkin' Donuts is in Boston. However they do have Trader Joe's in Boston and I have mastered the bus system well enough to get to the Trader Joe's close to me. And just past that Trader Joe's is the nearest Jewish neighborhood which means there is a fantastic bagel place I can go to for breakfast before I go grocery shopping. That and many other reasons is why I think I'm going to like Boston come the end of the year.
Both of my roommates are awesome. One actually enjoys cleaning the dishes and the other says what she thinks and doesn't give a damn (though really that's true for both of them.) They're mature and smart and don't believe in petty drama. They are, basically, the perfect antidote to last year's roommate situation. I hope everything continues to go as well as it has been for the past few days, but I have high hopes that they will. Tomorrow I find out if the rest of my section are as awesome as my roommates.
That is all for now. I have my second day of orientation tomorrow which hopefully will be less dull than the first day. Quickly though one last thing: I love how cold Boston is or at least how much colder it is here than in Virginia. Bless the North.
Boston. Boston has confusing roads and tiny tram cars. However I feel that by the end of this school year I'm going to like Boston at least as much as I like DC (though not as much as I love London.) There are more Dunkin' Donuts in this city than there are Starbucks in any other city which is kind of awesome. The law school is right across the way from a Dunkin' Donuts and there is one across the street from the T stop I get off of to get to school. That's how popular Dunkin' Donuts is in Boston. However they do have Trader Joe's in Boston and I have mastered the bus system well enough to get to the Trader Joe's close to me. And just past that Trader Joe's is the nearest Jewish neighborhood which means there is a fantastic bagel place I can go to for breakfast before I go grocery shopping. That and many other reasons is why I think I'm going to like Boston come the end of the year.
Both of my roommates are awesome. One actually enjoys cleaning the dishes and the other says what she thinks and doesn't give a damn (though really that's true for both of them.) They're mature and smart and don't believe in petty drama. They are, basically, the perfect antidote to last year's roommate situation. I hope everything continues to go as well as it has been for the past few days, but I have high hopes that they will. Tomorrow I find out if the rest of my section are as awesome as my roommates.
That is all for now. I have my second day of orientation tomorrow which hopefully will be less dull than the first day. Quickly though one last thing: I love how cold Boston is or at least how much colder it is here than in Virginia. Bless the North.
Doubt
I have been told from a young age by my mother that I was smart. From a slightly older age I have been told by my mother that I am smarter than most people. I've never really believed her though. I didn't get the same grades as the identified smart people I knew and I just assumed that meant that while I might be smart, I wasn't necessarily "gifted." I was lazy and smart enough to get away with that. This past summer though I realized that what my mother has been telling me all these years is true. I am smart. And if you've been reading this blog long enough you know I don't like to compliment myself or give myself any credit for anything. But I am smart. I am extremely smart. And for whatever reason that scares the pants off of me.
I started orientation at law school today. It was basically the same shit you here at any orientation anywhere. Study. Do the reading and do the necessary work. Don't over tax yourself. And read. As one of the people I met afterwards said, I wouldn't be here if I didn't know that's what you have to do. I know I have to read. I know I have to study. I also know I remember the outline of a court case I read a month and a half ago, so yeah. I kept wondering while 2nd year students were talking about their experiences "what the hell have I gotten myself into? Is everyone here that thick?" I'm not trying to diss these students, but the advice they were giving is lame and doesn't apply to everyone and shouldn't be taken as gospel.
I spent a better part of the drive from my grandparents' house to Boston wondering if I made the right choice with my life. Law school costs a bundle and I can't tell if my heart is really in this. My roommates have been fantastic though, so I hadn't really been thinking about this nagging doubt until today during orientation. I know I can't guarantee that I've made the wrong choice until I've been through at least the first semester, but right now things are still up in the air for me. My number one hope is that I haven't made a terrible choice that I'll regret thirty years down the line or that I'll be too scared to abandon this bad choice (and end up regretting thirty years down the line.) But we'll see.
I started orientation at law school today. It was basically the same shit you here at any orientation anywhere. Study. Do the reading and do the necessary work. Don't over tax yourself. And read. As one of the people I met afterwards said, I wouldn't be here if I didn't know that's what you have to do. I know I have to read. I know I have to study. I also know I remember the outline of a court case I read a month and a half ago, so yeah. I kept wondering while 2nd year students were talking about their experiences "what the hell have I gotten myself into? Is everyone here that thick?" I'm not trying to diss these students, but the advice they were giving is lame and doesn't apply to everyone and shouldn't be taken as gospel.
I spent a better part of the drive from my grandparents' house to Boston wondering if I made the right choice with my life. Law school costs a bundle and I can't tell if my heart is really in this. My roommates have been fantastic though, so I hadn't really been thinking about this nagging doubt until today during orientation. I know I can't guarantee that I've made the wrong choice until I've been through at least the first semester, but right now things are still up in the air for me. My number one hope is that I haven't made a terrible choice that I'll regret thirty years down the line or that I'll be too scared to abandon this bad choice (and end up regretting thirty years down the line.) But we'll see.
1.8.11
Nore's Legal Series - Mashups and Remixes
Music Mashups: Testing the Limits of Copyright Law as Remix culture Takes Society by Storm by Emily Harper
Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the First Amendment Values of Transformative Videos by Andrew S. Long
Using Social Norms to Regulate Fan Fiction and Remix Culture by Steven A. Hetcher
15 Megabytes of Fame: A Fair Use Defense for Mash Ups as DJ Culture Reaches Its Postmodern Limits by Aaron Power
The Girl Talk Dilemma: Can Copyright Law Accommodate New Forms of Sample-Based Music by David Mongillo
In the case of remixes and mashups, there seems to be fine line between the two genres and both are connected by the use of sampling of other works. Remixes can be described as songs where the instrumental background of the original song has been manipulated in some fashion (whether it has been completely recomposed or simply altered in some way) while the vocal line remains largely unchanged. Mashups, whether they are video mashups or song mashups, take elements from two or more different original composition and “mash” together elements from the source material to create an entirely new work. Remixes tend to be created for clubs and originated within DJ/club culture while mashups, particularly video mashups, are an extension of fan culture and can be seen as critiques on the works from which they are borrowing.
While both remixes and particularly mashups stem from a culture of sampling, there is a distinct dearth of case law concerning these two genres. As with sampling this can largely be attributed to the fact that neither the creators of remixes and mashups nor the original artists wish to help create any kind of precedent whether it be negative or positive. While television and movie production companies have taken steps to regulate the use of their copyrighted materials (largely by pressuring websites such as YouTube to take down any potentially offending material) no actual court cases have been presented. This has left lawyers and academics to postulate how best to deal with remixes and mashups without the worry of creating precedent that would favor either side.
The overall sentiment from legal academics is that to properly deal with the issues presented by remixes and mashups, copyright law as a whole needs to be overhauled. However experts are divided as to what direction such an overhaul should head in. One option would be to lean towards a more utilitarian view of transformative works. As it stands now, it is very difficult to argue that a work, such as a mashup or remix, is in fact transformative and therefore would fall under the fair use doctrine. According to the article by Aaron Power, mashups in particular should be analyzed as “quasi” parodies and like parodies should be able to use the fair use defense if and when such a case is presented to the courts. The other option, for those scholars that believe that mashups and remixes do not fall under the fair use doctrine, would have Congress or the record companies setup some kind of compulsory licensing system. Under this system creators of remixes and mashups would use their already existing community standards to ascertain what percentage of their income would be given back to the original authors. The other option concerning compulsory licensing would see a blanket licensing system similar to that used by BMI and ASCAP where mashup and remix artists would pay an annual fee for the right to sample copyrighted material. In both cases amateur mashup and remix artists would not have to pay these fees because their creations “cause no harm” and in fact should be legalized.
While it seems that legal scholars tend to prefer a softening of the definition of transformative work to include mashups and remix, there is no clear consensus as to how the genres of mashups and remixes should be treated under copyright law. The only agreed upon fact is that copyright law must be changed to deal with the issues presented by these two genres.
Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the First Amendment Values of Transformative Videos by Andrew S. Long
Using Social Norms to Regulate Fan Fiction and Remix Culture by Steven A. Hetcher
15 Megabytes of Fame: A Fair Use Defense for Mash Ups as DJ Culture Reaches Its Postmodern Limits by Aaron Power
The Girl Talk Dilemma: Can Copyright Law Accommodate New Forms of Sample-Based Music by David Mongillo
In the case of remixes and mashups, there seems to be fine line between the two genres and both are connected by the use of sampling of other works. Remixes can be described as songs where the instrumental background of the original song has been manipulated in some fashion (whether it has been completely recomposed or simply altered in some way) while the vocal line remains largely unchanged. Mashups, whether they are video mashups or song mashups, take elements from two or more different original composition and “mash” together elements from the source material to create an entirely new work. Remixes tend to be created for clubs and originated within DJ/club culture while mashups, particularly video mashups, are an extension of fan culture and can be seen as critiques on the works from which they are borrowing.
While both remixes and particularly mashups stem from a culture of sampling, there is a distinct dearth of case law concerning these two genres. As with sampling this can largely be attributed to the fact that neither the creators of remixes and mashups nor the original artists wish to help create any kind of precedent whether it be negative or positive. While television and movie production companies have taken steps to regulate the use of their copyrighted materials (largely by pressuring websites such as YouTube to take down any potentially offending material) no actual court cases have been presented. This has left lawyers and academics to postulate how best to deal with remixes and mashups without the worry of creating precedent that would favor either side.
The overall sentiment from legal academics is that to properly deal with the issues presented by remixes and mashups, copyright law as a whole needs to be overhauled. However experts are divided as to what direction such an overhaul should head in. One option would be to lean towards a more utilitarian view of transformative works. As it stands now, it is very difficult to argue that a work, such as a mashup or remix, is in fact transformative and therefore would fall under the fair use doctrine. According to the article by Aaron Power, mashups in particular should be analyzed as “quasi” parodies and like parodies should be able to use the fair use defense if and when such a case is presented to the courts. The other option, for those scholars that believe that mashups and remixes do not fall under the fair use doctrine, would have Congress or the record companies setup some kind of compulsory licensing system. Under this system creators of remixes and mashups would use their already existing community standards to ascertain what percentage of their income would be given back to the original authors. The other option concerning compulsory licensing would see a blanket licensing system similar to that used by BMI and ASCAP where mashup and remix artists would pay an annual fee for the right to sample copyrighted material. In both cases amateur mashup and remix artists would not have to pay these fees because their creations “cause no harm” and in fact should be legalized.
While it seems that legal scholars tend to prefer a softening of the definition of transformative work to include mashups and remix, there is no clear consensus as to how the genres of mashups and remixes should be treated under copyright law. The only agreed upon fact is that copyright law must be changed to deal with the issues presented by these two genres.
11.7.11
Nore's Legal Series - De Minimis
Somewhere in that title should be the word sporadic. But anyway here's a definition of de minimis (from Wikipedia): "a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, normally in the locutions de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles") or de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles").
Newton v. Diamond (2005, 9th Circuit) and Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
The court affirmed the lower court’s (District Court for the Central District of California) grant of summary judgment for the defendants. Both the District Court and the 9th Circuit found that the sampling in question (a 6 second clip featuring three notes) lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright and that the use of the clip by the defendants was de minimis. In finding that the use of the clip was de minimis the court stated that “no reasonable juror would find the three-note portion of the composition used by the [defendants] was a quantitatively or qualitatively significant portion of the composition as a whole.” While the prosecution showed evidence that the technique used in the performance was unique to the original performer (the “Newton technique”) that because the defendants had licensed the sound recording what was in question was whether they, the defendants, had infringed on the original composition. Both courts found that the defendants had not infringed on the original composition because the clip that they had used was de minimis.
Based on this case, and the case of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in deciding whether a case of infringement is de minimis or not the courts use the test that a work is de minimis “only if the average audience would not recognize the appropriation.” In the case of Newton v. Diamond the court ruled that it was de minimis use not just because the sample used was relatively short in length but because an average listener wouldn’t know that the sample had been taken from a different larger work. In the case of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. the court found in favor of the plaintiff because the section that had been sampled, while relatively brief, is widely known to the general public and is considered one of the most sampled pieces of music within the rap genre. As such the general rule of thumb within the courts in declaring whether or not a work is de minimis is whether a general audience would be able to distinguish the work if it were copied and then incorporated into another work. “Even if the similar material is quantitatively small, if it is qualitatively important the trier of fact may properly find substantial similarity” (from Nimmer on Copyright) and the inverse is true for finding a work de minimis. Ultimately whether a work is de minimis or not is up to the specialist reviewing the work.
Newton v. Diamond (2005, 9th Circuit) and Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
The court affirmed the lower court’s (District Court for the Central District of California) grant of summary judgment for the defendants. Both the District Court and the 9th Circuit found that the sampling in question (a 6 second clip featuring three notes) lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright and that the use of the clip by the defendants was de minimis. In finding that the use of the clip was de minimis the court stated that “no reasonable juror would find the three-note portion of the composition used by the [defendants] was a quantitatively or qualitatively significant portion of the composition as a whole.” While the prosecution showed evidence that the technique used in the performance was unique to the original performer (the “Newton technique”) that because the defendants had licensed the sound recording what was in question was whether they, the defendants, had infringed on the original composition. Both courts found that the defendants had not infringed on the original composition because the clip that they had used was de minimis.
Based on this case, and the case of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in deciding whether a case of infringement is de minimis or not the courts use the test that a work is de minimis “only if the average audience would not recognize the appropriation.” In the case of Newton v. Diamond the court ruled that it was de minimis use not just because the sample used was relatively short in length but because an average listener wouldn’t know that the sample had been taken from a different larger work. In the case of Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. the court found in favor of the plaintiff because the section that had been sampled, while relatively brief, is widely known to the general public and is considered one of the most sampled pieces of music within the rap genre. As such the general rule of thumb within the courts in declaring whether or not a work is de minimis is whether a general audience would be able to distinguish the work if it were copied and then incorporated into another work. “Even if the similar material is quantitatively small, if it is qualitatively important the trier of fact may properly find substantial similarity” (from Nimmer on Copyright) and the inverse is true for finding a work de minimis. Ultimately whether a work is de minimis or not is up to the specialist reviewing the work.
16.6.11
Nore's Legal Series - Sampling
I haven't been blogging. However that doesn't mean I haven't been writing or doing things. In fact I've been writing about various legal cases having to do with various legal ideas and issues pertaining to copyright. It's hella fun and I thought some of you might enjoy it. I've only written about three topics, but they're fairly lengthy, so that makes up for the sparsity. If you get confused by a term or want more details, there's Wikipedia and dictionary.com. Enjoy!*
The practice of sampling within the rap and hip-hop music communities has been around since the late 1980s and since that point the issue of copyright and sampling has been something that has largely been avoided by the courts, at least when compared to the output of music created through the use of sampling. Since the advent of sampling those few cases that are either pursued by the original artist or manage to make it to court have been dealt with in a variety of ways by judges. Up until 2005 with the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films case judges could take one of the two different methods or combine those methods to reach a ruling. The first method would be to use the substantial similarity test where the song that was created with the use of sampling would be compared to the original song from which the samples were taken. In comparing the two songs the judge would use the criteria of whether or not the songs were similar in message, tone, and audience to find whether or not the songs are substantially similar. The other method in trying cases of infringement through sampling would be to use a de minimis analysis. This would involve the judge looking at the particular sample and determining whether the sampled used constituted a qualitative and quantitative part of the original song. If the sample did not, and would not be recognizable to an ordinary listener, then the case would be dismissed. Normally judges would use a combination of the two methods, as can be seen in the case Newton v. Diamond where the judge used a combination of the substantial similarity test and the de minimis analysis to determine that no infringement had occurred. However Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films created a new bright-line rule which aimed to simplify the issue of whether or not sampling constituted copyright infringement.
In Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films the judge ruled that in cases where the artists admit the sampling has occurred that “no substantial similarity or de minimis [inquiries] should be undertaken.” This rule would only apply to digital sampling, which makes up the majority of sampling done within the rap and hip-hop communities. The judge also stated that simply an artist should “get a license or do not sample.” In this case the judge was implying that any kind of sampling, no matter how small or even potentially unrecognizable, goes against copyright law and should be considered infringement (“even when a small part of a sound recording is sampled, the part taken is something of value. No further proof of that is necessary…”). Again, this rule would only apply to digital sampling.
In light of this case, as well as Newton v. Diamond which was decided in the same year as Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, a number of scholarly articles have been published discussing the merits of this bright-line rule and the way copyright law in general deals with digital sampling. While all scholars agree that the law needs to better incorporate the idea of digital sampling, the exact method of dealing with sampling is not as widely agreed upon. Some scholars support the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films others, including Nimmer, believe that the judges were wrong in many of their conclusions namely the dismissal of the use of de minimis analysis and substantial similarity. In another article written by John Schietinger in the Fall 2005 issue of the DePaul Law review, the author vehemently disagreed with the judges dismissal of de minimis and substantial similarity analysis instead stating that a de minimis analysis should be conducted for issues of sampling. In doing so the author stated that it should be found whether the sample constitutes a trivial portion of the original song, and whether the sample is quantitatively recognizable within the context of the alleged infringing song and whether the two songs are qualitatively similar. Ultimately though, as the judges noted in their decision for Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films “where one stands [on this issue] depends on where one sits” and it is unlikely that the issue will be fully resolved any time soon.
Finally it should be noted that even with the 6th Circuit bright-line rule, most cases of sampling are settled out of court or “ignored” by artists within the community, particularly if the artist sampling isn’t well known or the song itself is not terribly popular.
*I feel I should point out that this is not legal advice, more a summary of how sampling and other ideas have been treated in court along with a little bit of analysis by yours truly. As with anything I write about the law, don't take it as authoritative more the thoughts of a pre-law student. Basically: I don't have a degree, so hire a real lawyer if you need real legal advice.
The practice of sampling within the rap and hip-hop music communities has been around since the late 1980s and since that point the issue of copyright and sampling has been something that has largely been avoided by the courts, at least when compared to the output of music created through the use of sampling. Since the advent of sampling those few cases that are either pursued by the original artist or manage to make it to court have been dealt with in a variety of ways by judges. Up until 2005 with the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films case judges could take one of the two different methods or combine those methods to reach a ruling. The first method would be to use the substantial similarity test where the song that was created with the use of sampling would be compared to the original song from which the samples were taken. In comparing the two songs the judge would use the criteria of whether or not the songs were similar in message, tone, and audience to find whether or not the songs are substantially similar. The other method in trying cases of infringement through sampling would be to use a de minimis analysis. This would involve the judge looking at the particular sample and determining whether the sampled used constituted a qualitative and quantitative part of the original song. If the sample did not, and would not be recognizable to an ordinary listener, then the case would be dismissed. Normally judges would use a combination of the two methods, as can be seen in the case Newton v. Diamond where the judge used a combination of the substantial similarity test and the de minimis analysis to determine that no infringement had occurred. However Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films created a new bright-line rule which aimed to simplify the issue of whether or not sampling constituted copyright infringement.
In Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films the judge ruled that in cases where the artists admit the sampling has occurred that “no substantial similarity or de minimis [inquiries] should be undertaken.” This rule would only apply to digital sampling, which makes up the majority of sampling done within the rap and hip-hop communities. The judge also stated that simply an artist should “get a license or do not sample.” In this case the judge was implying that any kind of sampling, no matter how small or even potentially unrecognizable, goes against copyright law and should be considered infringement (“even when a small part of a sound recording is sampled, the part taken is something of value. No further proof of that is necessary…”). Again, this rule would only apply to digital sampling.
In light of this case, as well as Newton v. Diamond which was decided in the same year as Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, a number of scholarly articles have been published discussing the merits of this bright-line rule and the way copyright law in general deals with digital sampling. While all scholars agree that the law needs to better incorporate the idea of digital sampling, the exact method of dealing with sampling is not as widely agreed upon. Some scholars support the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films others, including Nimmer, believe that the judges were wrong in many of their conclusions namely the dismissal of the use of de minimis analysis and substantial similarity. In another article written by John Schietinger in the Fall 2005 issue of the DePaul Law review, the author vehemently disagreed with the judges dismissal of de minimis and substantial similarity analysis instead stating that a de minimis analysis should be conducted for issues of sampling. In doing so the author stated that it should be found whether the sample constitutes a trivial portion of the original song, and whether the sample is quantitatively recognizable within the context of the alleged infringing song and whether the two songs are qualitatively similar. Ultimately though, as the judges noted in their decision for Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films “where one stands [on this issue] depends on where one sits” and it is unlikely that the issue will be fully resolved any time soon.
Finally it should be noted that even with the 6th Circuit bright-line rule, most cases of sampling are settled out of court or “ignored” by artists within the community, particularly if the artist sampling isn’t well known or the song itself is not terribly popular.
*I feel I should point out that this is not legal advice, more a summary of how sampling and other ideas have been treated in court along with a little bit of analysis by yours truly. As with anything I write about the law, don't take it as authoritative more the thoughts of a pre-law student. Basically: I don't have a degree, so hire a real lawyer if you need real legal advice.
5.5.11
What I've Been Doing
I freakin' love bullet points. They allow me to not write real paragraphs. Yay bullet points.
- My friends got me hooked on Supernatural so I spent the better part of the last month watching every episode from the past seven seasons instead of doing important things like studying. And studying. I'm now entirely caught up (except for the episodes that haven't aired yet, because that would be magic and I'm not magical yet) and am a huge dorky fan of the show. Thanks Heather, Lauren, and Ana!
- I have finished my last and finale semester of undergraduate studies. I have somehow passed all my classes despite the marathons of Supernatural I engaged in right up until finals and will be graduating this Saturday. It's terrifying and completely normal at the same time, largely because this is not the end of my academic career, merely the last part of one particular stage of that career. Thank god I have law school to worry about otherwise I would be imploding right about now. Moving on.
- Acting as furniture for one dog and coping with the fact that my other dog is blind. I've also been cleaning house for the impending arrival of my grandparents but that takes up less of my time than being furniture for my older (and not blind) dog.
- Have I mentioned law school? Yeah, I've done two entrance interviews for federal loans and am slowly building up the confidence to contact people to ask if they want to be my roommate. Speaking of which...
- Cursing the names of my former roommates. I really and truly dislike them at this point. But back to law school...
- Actually, not so much back to law school as related to law school. As we know I want to go into copyright law when the time comes for me to actually get a job. And now, thanks to a friend's brother's friend's mom I can say I'll be learning the inner workings of copyright this summer. Starting May 16th I'll be working at the Copyright Office and I couldn't be happier. Granted this means I won't be working at WPFW this summer (in all likelihood) which is kind of sad, but I'll be working at the freakin' Copyright Office. How awesome is that? Super awesome, that's how awesome.
- I've watched the pilot and first non-pilot episode of Twin Peaks. By this time next week I'll probably be done with the first season and asking myself whether or not I should actually watch the second. Damn you Netflix, damn you to hell.
20.4.11
Doctor Who
You might recall from my "big" graph of fandoms that one of those fandoms was Doctor Who. Based on the sites I frequent (EW.com, AV Club) this Saturday's premiere of the 6th season* of DW is pretty well known. If not, this Saturday, 9pm, BBC America. Watch and be amazed (hopefully). But today the DW fandom got some pretty sad news. We've had a rash of deaths over the past couple of months of actors who played main characters during the classic series.** It's been sad, but has left a pretty big hole in her passing, namely Sarah Jane Smith. She was a companion to the 3rd and 4th Doctor*** and came back in the new series for an episode before starting her own series "The Sarah Jane Adventures." Sadly, the actress who played Sarah Jane, Elisabeth Sladen passed away today. The only happy thing to come out of this, and it's really perversely happy, is that Sarah Jane and Elisabeth are a worldwide trend on Twitter. And here's the proof:
(click for the full picture)
Anyway, I know I'll be thinking about her this Saturday.
*If I were British I would have put series which is the same as season over here, but I didn't want to confuse people. Also there was a "season" of specials when the last Doctor (David Tennant) was starting to bow out. However that doesn't count as a real season, so this new season (and I keep wanting to say series) is the 6th one of the new run. More on that later.
**The original run of Doctor Who ran from 1963 until 1989 and is called the "classic" series. The new run of the show (which is referred to as "New Who") started in 2005 with Christoper Eccelston playing the Doctor.
***The first Doctor was played by William Hartnell who was old. So when he was like "I'm out of here because I'm old" and the series was really popular the good producers over at BBC were like "We'll just say that because the Doctor is an alien, he can 'regenerate' into a totally different person with a different face and a different personality and he can do that 13 times." And so it was that we've had 11 Doctors, some who have stayed for a really long time (David Tennant, Tom Baker) and some who only stick around for one season (Christopher Eccelston.) Trust me when I say, you really don't have to understand all of this to watch the series. But it can be helpful.****
****In case you were wondering, except for Tom Baker, I remembered all this information off the top of my head. Because I am a boss.
(click for the full picture)
Anyway, I know I'll be thinking about her this Saturday.
*If I were British I would have put series which is the same as season over here, but I didn't want to confuse people. Also there was a "season" of specials when the last Doctor (David Tennant) was starting to bow out. However that doesn't count as a real season, so this new season (and I keep wanting to say series) is the 6th one of the new run. More on that later.
**The original run of Doctor Who ran from 1963 until 1989 and is called the "classic" series. The new run of the show (which is referred to as "New Who") started in 2005 with Christoper Eccelston playing the Doctor.
***The first Doctor was played by William Hartnell who was old. So when he was like "I'm out of here because I'm old" and the series was really popular the good producers over at BBC were like "We'll just say that because the Doctor is an alien, he can 'regenerate' into a totally different person with a different face and a different personality and he can do that 13 times." And so it was that we've had 11 Doctors, some who have stayed for a really long time (David Tennant, Tom Baker) and some who only stick around for one season (Christopher Eccelston.) Trust me when I say, you really don't have to understand all of this to watch the series. But it can be helpful.****
****In case you were wondering, except for Tom Baker, I remembered all this information off the top of my head. Because I am a boss.
19.4.11
I Took A Photo of My Fandom(s)
There was a time when I didn't know what fandom was. This doesn't mean I was a fan girl (I really was) I just didn't know what fandom was or that I was a fan girl. I just knew I really, really liked the Beatles. I've since learned (in depth) what fandom is and that various fandoms have different names for their fans. For instance, when I really, really liked the Beatles I could have described myself as an Applescruff.* Not every fandom has a name for its fans and generally lady fans are called fangirls and gentlemen fans are called fanboys. Fanboys and fangirls got to cons and if you're really obsessed you dress up as your favorite character. That's called cosplay. Of course all this is a rather extreme version of fandom and there are a great many people (myself included) who take more of a back seat when it comes to fandom. I never got around to writing about this, but I am very much a lurker. This is because I'm naturally shy and have never really thought of taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet to break out of my shell. But I'm not alone in being a lurker. So those are kind of the two extremes of fandom at least from my perspective: Cosplayers and lurkers. As with everything there are loads of people who fall in between the two extremes and they probably make up the bulk of fandom.**
As you can tell by the chart I made (which doesn't actually include everything) I consider myself a member of a whole ton of fandoms. That's the thing about being a lurker: You can sample a lot of different things without giving up too much of yourself to anyone of them. I have friends who cosplay and go to cons and I can tell you they give a lot of themselves to a select few fandoms and pretty much invest completely in those fandoms. I on the other hand can be a part of 12 different fandoms and enjoy all of them to various degrees and not be invested completely.*** In my opinion fandom can be a good thing and a really awful thing and it depends entirely on how much of yourself you invest in the fandom. Fandom is great when it introduces you to like minded people and you make friends that can last a really long time. But fandom is really awful when you've become so invested in it that you start to blur the line between the reality and fiction. I'm not saying that investing in a fandom automatically means you're going to go crazy. But there's always the chance.
So how do I intervene in my fandom? I don't. I'm a co-founder of the school's sci-fi club (for what that's worth) and I take a real interest in everything that goes in within my fandom. But I learned awhile ago that I'm not really meant to intervene, that I'm better off as a lurker. So, I took a photo of my fandom.The "Family and Friends" section got a little squished because I tend to forget how many fandoms I was introduced to because of nagging from friends/family.**** Hopefully you can read my handwriting otherwise none of this is going to make sense and quite frankly my fandoms don't make sense in list form. And if a fandom isn't underlined it means that it hasn't become inactive but I'm not currently "participating" in it either. So now I define active, inactive, and random outliers.
*Another example: Chiefs and Chiefettes for the Kaiser Chiefs, Whovians for Doctor Who and of course the most famous Trekkies for Star Trek.
**The crazies (cosplayers) are just more well known because they are crazy. And I say this as a friend of at least 3 hardcore cosplayers. This does not make them less crazy.
***I have some not fun experience in investing way too much into a fandom :cough:Kaiser Chiefs:cough: that did not end well. I kind of couldn't listen to them for a good three months. I've since recovered and decided that being a lurker is better for my mental health.
****They don't always nag. But sometimes they do. And then they force to me to watch things when I don't pay attention to their nagging.
*****This is particularly true for the Killers who I discovered by watching VH1 on a snow day. "Mr. Brightside" is unlike anything I had ever heard before and Brandon Flowers is hella cute. A lot of my fandoms are based on the attractiveness of the members. It's shallow, but you gotta start somewhere.
As you can tell by the chart I made (which doesn't actually include everything) I consider myself a member of a whole ton of fandoms. That's the thing about being a lurker: You can sample a lot of different things without giving up too much of yourself to anyone of them. I have friends who cosplay and go to cons and I can tell you they give a lot of themselves to a select few fandoms and pretty much invest completely in those fandoms. I on the other hand can be a part of 12 different fandoms and enjoy all of them to various degrees and not be invested completely.*** In my opinion fandom can be a good thing and a really awful thing and it depends entirely on how much of yourself you invest in the fandom. Fandom is great when it introduces you to like minded people and you make friends that can last a really long time. But fandom is really awful when you've become so invested in it that you start to blur the line between the reality and fiction. I'm not saying that investing in a fandom automatically means you're going to go crazy. But there's always the chance.
So how do I intervene in my fandom? I don't. I'm a co-founder of the school's sci-fi club (for what that's worth) and I take a real interest in everything that goes in within my fandom. But I learned awhile ago that I'm not really meant to intervene, that I'm better off as a lurker. So, I took a photo of my fandom.The "Family and Friends" section got a little squished because I tend to forget how many fandoms I was introduced to because of nagging from friends/family.**** Hopefully you can read my handwriting otherwise none of this is going to make sense and quite frankly my fandoms don't make sense in list form. And if a fandom isn't underlined it means that it hasn't become inactive but I'm not currently "participating" in it either. So now I define active, inactive, and random outliers.
- Active - This means that I either a) follow one of the members/entity on Facebook/Twitter, b) am actively watching/listening/reading works having to do with the fandom or c) awaiting the return of said entity be it through new shows, new albums or tour dates I can actually go to.
- Inactive - This if fairly simple. I no longer give a rat's ass about what this group/entity is doing. They once meant something but now I no longer care.
- Random Outliers - This group has no direct connection to any of the circled entities and generally speaking were discovered by pure chance.***** They may or may not influence participation in other fandoms, but generally speaking they just kind of exist in their own little worlds of awesomeness.
*Another example: Chiefs and Chiefettes for the Kaiser Chiefs, Whovians for Doctor Who and of course the most famous Trekkies for Star Trek.
**The crazies (cosplayers) are just more well known because they are crazy. And I say this as a friend of at least 3 hardcore cosplayers. This does not make them less crazy.
***I have some not fun experience in investing way too much into a fandom :cough:Kaiser Chiefs:cough: that did not end well. I kind of couldn't listen to them for a good three months. I've since recovered and decided that being a lurker is better for my mental health.
****They don't always nag. But sometimes they do. And then they force to me to watch things when I don't pay attention to their nagging.
*****This is particularly true for the Killers who I discovered by watching VH1 on a snow day. "Mr. Brightside" is unlike anything I had ever heard before and Brandon Flowers is hella cute. A lot of my fandoms are based on the attractiveness of the members. It's shallow, but you gotta start somewhere.
15.4.11
Last Cuts
So last night I had my second to last radio show (ever) and quite appropriately I played last tracks from albums. In introducing the theme of the show I said that part of what constitutes a last track is the conditioning you get from listening to an album over and over again. I then went on to talk about other characteristics of last tracks including the fact that some just don't know how to end and the use of fade-out by the group/artist. I've since been thinking about what I think contributes the most to what makes a last track a last track. I concluded earlish this morning that the reason a person might identify a last track as such is because they've been conditioned to thinking of it as a last track from listening to the album it finishes off over and over again. In our world of downloading what I consider to be the hallmarks of a last track (namely that sense of finality you get when listening to it) may not be as universal as it use to be. It's not like with a classical piece where you go through certain structures (exposition, development, recapitulation, coda) that lead you to a sense of finality. I identify these songs as last tracks because I've listened to the albums enough to be conditioned to identify them as such. The reason I put "Come On Home" and "40'" from Franz Ferdinand's first album together is because when I listened to the album (about a million times) I became conditioned to identify them as one big lump. So while there are things that are universal about last tracks, it's also a very personal thing. However none of this changes the fact that songs that you identify as last tracks are hard to program within a radio show. Unless you put them last in which case it works just fine.
Playlist
*Nifty fact about Kate Nash: She's from Harrow, Middlesex which is where I lived when I studied abroad. Also she's dating one of the lead singers of the Cribs Ryan Jarman.
**Another nifty fact: I can play the main piano theme that you hear at the beginning and the other piano theme from the end. Knowing how to play those two things lead me to learn the following about the song: It's in the key of A major. Yay being a music major!
***The Beatles - Her Majesty
Playlist
- Talking Heads - Road to Nowhere
- The Clash - Train in Vain
- Cake - Tougher Than It Is
- Kate Nash* - Merry Happy**
- Keane - Love Is The End
- Ok Go - Bye Bye Baby
- The Beatles - Tomorrow Never Knows
- The Zutons - Don't Ever (Think Too Much)
- The Cribs - Things Aren't Gonna Change
- Franz Ferdinand - Come On Home/40'
- The Beatles - Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End***
*Nifty fact about Kate Nash: She's from Harrow, Middlesex which is where I lived when I studied abroad. Also she's dating one of the lead singers of the Cribs Ryan Jarman.
**Another nifty fact: I can play the main piano theme that you hear at the beginning and the other piano theme from the end. Knowing how to play those two things lead me to learn the following about the song: It's in the key of A major. Yay being a music major!
***The Beatles - Her Majesty
14.4.11
The End of an Era or My Mashup
I have a lot to say about being a WMWC DJ. Most of it's very positive. But that's for another entry, probably next week. This entry is about the mashup I created for the assignment that will also be featured on my last radio show ever next week. My idea was that I would string together 15 second (or so) snippets of a variety of songs from artists who I a) played only one song of theirs, but I played it frequently, b) played often but not as frequently as others or c) played one song just once but who's style covers a range of similar artists who I played one song by once or twice. The mashup-ed artists and songs are as follows:
Elmashup by cydwarning30
Enjoy.
- The Asteroids Galaxy Tour - Golden Age
- The Ting Tings - Great DJ
- Adam Ant - Goody Two Shoes
- The Rumble Strips - Not the Only Person
- Spoon - The Underdog
- Guillemots - Trains to Brazil
- Mystery Jets - Young Love
- BPA - Seattle
- Music Go Music - Light of Love
- The White Rabbits - Navy Wives
- Eliza Doolittle - Pick Up
- The Submarines - You, Me and The Bourgeoisie
- Feist - 1234
Elmashup by cydwarning30
Enjoy.
12.4.11
Last Week's Radio Show
This entry has nothing to do with copyright. I promise.
So I haven't written about last week's radio show. I apologize for this, it's just been one of those weeks. I'm doing it now though.
As I mentioned on my show I have had some trouble in the past programming female (or lady) artists. We all have blind spots when it comes to what we listen to and for whatever reason, lady singer/songwriters or just female artists in general is a major blind spot for me along with rap and hip-hop. So this past week's show was an opportunity to try and explore a group of artists I'm not particularly familiar with. In putting together the playlist for the show I knew I absolutely had to include the following artists: Patti Smith and Blondie. While the song I chose for Patti Smith doesn't really show it, Patti Smith had a huge impact on popular music in the US and really is considered the first punk artist in the US. Again, the song I chose didn't really show that side, I was really pleased that I finally got to tie in something I did in high school to a part of my college life that means a whole hell of a lot to me. As for Blondie, much like Patti Smith, they were a major influence in the New York post-punk music scene and unlike the Talking Heads, have no connection to an art school. I knew I wanted to include those two because of their importance to musical movements that still influence what I listen to on a regular basis. Everything else, particularly Rickie Lee Jones, were artists I either knew because of my parents or are artists that I listen to all the time. I'm still kind of surprised at how few female artists (who write their own material anyway) I have in my music collection, but as I said, we all have our blind spots. And now for the actual playlist.
As heads up this week's show will consist entirely of last tracks from a variety of albums. And I will write about it before this time next week.
So I haven't written about last week's radio show. I apologize for this, it's just been one of those weeks. I'm doing it now though.
As I mentioned on my show I have had some trouble in the past programming female (or lady) artists. We all have blind spots when it comes to what we listen to and for whatever reason, lady singer/songwriters or just female artists in general is a major blind spot for me along with rap and hip-hop. So this past week's show was an opportunity to try and explore a group of artists I'm not particularly familiar with. In putting together the playlist for the show I knew I absolutely had to include the following artists: Patti Smith and Blondie. While the song I chose for Patti Smith doesn't really show it, Patti Smith had a huge impact on popular music in the US and really is considered the first punk artist in the US. Again, the song I chose didn't really show that side, I was really pleased that I finally got to tie in something I did in high school to a part of my college life that means a whole hell of a lot to me. As for Blondie, much like Patti Smith, they were a major influence in the New York post-punk music scene and unlike the Talking Heads, have no connection to an art school. I knew I wanted to include those two because of their importance to musical movements that still influence what I listen to on a regular basis. Everything else, particularly Rickie Lee Jones, were artists I either knew because of my parents or are artists that I listen to all the time. I'm still kind of surprised at how few female artists (who write their own material anyway) I have in my music collection, but as I said, we all have our blind spots. And now for the actual playlist.
- Rumour Has It - Adele
- Paris - Kate Nash
- Oh My God - Ida Maria
- Frederick - Patti Smith
- French Navy - Camera Obscura
- Waltz (Better Than Fine) - Fiona Apple
- Chuck E's in Love - Rickie Lee Jones
- Kiss With a Fist - Florence + the Machine
- A Smokey Room - Eliza Doolittle
- Rocket - Goldfrapp
- Sweet Dreams - Eurythmics
- Call Me - Blondie
- Born Secular - Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins
As heads up this week's show will consist entirely of last tracks from a variety of albums. And I will write about it before this time next week.
8.4.11
Sharing Isn't Bad Unless It's Not Yours and Then It's Stealing
*DISCLAIMER: For the last time, I'm not actually an expert on copyright law. I have opinions on it, but then again I have opinions on lots of things including music, literature, and film. So while it's nice that I keep getting my opinion asked on matters concerning copyright law, I don't know what I'm talking about. These are just opinions. And a very sparse smattering of facts.
This is probably going to hurt me in some way later on in life but I have illegally downloaded music. To anyone crying foul I would say this: I don't anymore and everyone's a hypocrite. The reason I use to illegally download music was because I use to be so obsessed with certain British bands* that I had to have everything they ever recorded in my collection or I would be sad. I'm no longer at that level of obsession and I have a better understanding of how royalties work so I can no longer argue that I make up for my nefarious ways by purchasing merch and going to their concerts. I "get" illegal downloading. Honestly I do. But just because you understand why someone does something doesn't make their illegal action any less illegal. I've said before that copyright law isn't perfect and that they way record companies handle enforcing copyright law (amongst other things) isn't perfect either. But as any elementary teacher can tell you two wrongs does not equal a right. Illegal is still illegal even if it doesn't conform with how you think the world should work.
So what's so wrong with sharing? Nothing. If you choose to share an original work, for instance a photograph, and decide to forgo normal copyright protections for Creative Commons then sharing is just jimdandy. Or let's say you take a photograph and decide that you're just going to forgo any kind of legal protection for the work. You put it the work into the ether and let whatever happens happen. That's fine and completely your choice. The problem occurs when you share something that isn't, legally speaking, yours to share. I own a copy of Lily Allen's most recent album.** That one copy is mine and mine alone. According to copyright law I don't have the right to provide copies of Lily Allen's album to the ether. It doesn't matter if I don't make a single penny, it's not my right to share my copy of Lily Allen's album with anyone. The fact that Lily Allen (and Lily Allen's manager and producer and the people who wrote the songs with her and her record labels) lose money is almost beside the point. The only person who has the right to make copies of Lily Allen's album is Lily Allen.*** Hence copyright. It's the right to make copies. I don't have that right. You don't have that right. My blind dog Rosie doesn't have that right. Only Lily Allen. So when you share a copy of your favorite artist's album with someone else over the internet you are, in a very general way, depriving that artist of some money. And that small amount of money amounts to a shit ton of money when millions of people all around the world do it. And that's when sharing becomes a problem.
Tempestuous Sea (Erin) made a really good point after class about filing sharing, particularly dealing with music but which really applies to all kinds of file sharing. If you really love an artist you should be willing to fund their career by actually purchasing their music. And I think that's part of the reason I don't illegally download anything anymore: If I really like something I should be willing to take the time to watch it or spend the money to own it legally. You can say what you want about the big bad record companies and how copyright only benefits the fat cat corporations (and you wouldn't be entirely wrong) but as I've said time and time again copyright came into existence to benefit creators. And for the most part copyright still does what it's suppose to do. Now please stop asking me to write the same thing over and over again.
*Okay, one British band that will be discussed at length when we get to fanfiction. You guys have no idea what you're getting into when we get to that section. It's going to be insane.
**Why Lily Allen? Because I'm listening to her right now. That's why.
***This is probably not technically true. Based on my class last year, her record label probably actually holds the copyright to the sound recordings and her music publisher probably holds the copyright to the songs. But we're going to pretend that it's Lily and only Lily.
This is probably going to hurt me in some way later on in life but I have illegally downloaded music. To anyone crying foul I would say this: I don't anymore and everyone's a hypocrite. The reason I use to illegally download music was because I use to be so obsessed with certain British bands* that I had to have everything they ever recorded in my collection or I would be sad. I'm no longer at that level of obsession and I have a better understanding of how royalties work so I can no longer argue that I make up for my nefarious ways by purchasing merch and going to their concerts. I "get" illegal downloading. Honestly I do. But just because you understand why someone does something doesn't make their illegal action any less illegal. I've said before that copyright law isn't perfect and that they way record companies handle enforcing copyright law (amongst other things) isn't perfect either. But as any elementary teacher can tell you two wrongs does not equal a right. Illegal is still illegal even if it doesn't conform with how you think the world should work.
So what's so wrong with sharing? Nothing. If you choose to share an original work, for instance a photograph, and decide to forgo normal copyright protections for Creative Commons then sharing is just jimdandy. Or let's say you take a photograph and decide that you're just going to forgo any kind of legal protection for the work. You put it the work into the ether and let whatever happens happen. That's fine and completely your choice. The problem occurs when you share something that isn't, legally speaking, yours to share. I own a copy of Lily Allen's most recent album.** That one copy is mine and mine alone. According to copyright law I don't have the right to provide copies of Lily Allen's album to the ether. It doesn't matter if I don't make a single penny, it's not my right to share my copy of Lily Allen's album with anyone. The fact that Lily Allen (and Lily Allen's manager and producer and the people who wrote the songs with her and her record labels) lose money is almost beside the point. The only person who has the right to make copies of Lily Allen's album is Lily Allen.*** Hence copyright. It's the right to make copies. I don't have that right. You don't have that right. My blind dog Rosie doesn't have that right. Only Lily Allen. So when you share a copy of your favorite artist's album with someone else over the internet you are, in a very general way, depriving that artist of some money. And that small amount of money amounts to a shit ton of money when millions of people all around the world do it. And that's when sharing becomes a problem.
Tempestuous Sea (Erin) made a really good point after class about filing sharing, particularly dealing with music but which really applies to all kinds of file sharing. If you really love an artist you should be willing to fund their career by actually purchasing their music. And I think that's part of the reason I don't illegally download anything anymore: If I really like something I should be willing to take the time to watch it or spend the money to own it legally. You can say what you want about the big bad record companies and how copyright only benefits the fat cat corporations (and you wouldn't be entirely wrong) but as I've said time and time again copyright came into existence to benefit creators. And for the most part copyright still does what it's suppose to do. Now please stop asking me to write the same thing over and over again.
*Okay, one British band that will be discussed at length when we get to fanfiction. You guys have no idea what you're getting into when we get to that section. It's going to be insane.
**Why Lily Allen? Because I'm listening to her right now. That's why.
***This is probably not technically true. Based on my class last year, her record label probably actually holds the copyright to the sound recordings and her music publisher probably holds the copyright to the songs. But we're going to pretend that it's Lily and only Lily.
7.4.11
TUSK!
This is my favourite* mashup ever. It was introduced to me by a friend in 8th grade and every time I hear one of the songs used in the mashup I almost immediately say "TUSK!" in my head. I feel I should point out that I haven't heard full length versions of most of the songs used, but if you don't know the context or haven't heard every song used (and therefore don't necessarily get all the references) it's fine. And still very, very hilarious.
*You might have noticed this, but I've recently gone back to using British spellings for a lot of things. I used to do this more regularly, but the sour aftertaste immediately after I returned to the US after my stay in London meant that I forced myself to use American spellings for words I had used British spellings for before my stay in London. I've since gotten over all of that have gone back to spelling things the British way.
Mashup Solution
Here's a conundrum: You've been a diligent and dedicated DJ at your local college radio station for three and a half years. However because you have managed to graduate on time (fingers crossed) your tenure is coming to an end and you're having to put together your last show. This makes you sad because there's no way you can feature all of the artists you've ever played on your show (which varied between 14 to 27 songs a week) and it's your last show so you want it to be awesome. Obviously there are some artists you featured more than others, so those guys will definitely get a song on your last show. But what about all the outliers? What about the awesome songs that you played just once or maybe twice but were awesome nonetheless? And the killer part is you only have 45 minutes. What do you do?
If you're me you realize that you have a mashup project due in your digital storytelling class that will solve this problem quite elegantly. Despite my initial wariness of going anywhere near Audacity again doing an audio mashup of about 3 minutes and 30 seconds (with each song getting somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds each) will allow me to fix the conundrum I'm in. I get to feature my favourite artists and get in most of the outliers as well. Rather an elegant solution, no?
I will say one thing about this mashup though: It will not be anywhere near as lovely as the mashups created by professionals like, for example, Girl Talk. Then again I don't have the same amount of time or the kind of equipment Girl Talk has, so I don't even know why I'm bringing them up other than to say that what I'm going to be doing is somewhere along the same lines as what Girl Talk does. Kind of not really. I still like this idea though and I think it will work. I don't know how well, but it will work.
If you're me you realize that you have a mashup project due in your digital storytelling class that will solve this problem quite elegantly. Despite my initial wariness of going anywhere near Audacity again doing an audio mashup of about 3 minutes and 30 seconds (with each song getting somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds each) will allow me to fix the conundrum I'm in. I get to feature my favourite artists and get in most of the outliers as well. Rather an elegant solution, no?
I will say one thing about this mashup though: It will not be anywhere near as lovely as the mashups created by professionals like, for example, Girl Talk. Then again I don't have the same amount of time or the kind of equipment Girl Talk has, so I don't even know why I'm bringing them up other than to say that what I'm going to be doing is somewhere along the same lines as what Girl Talk does. Kind of not really. I still like this idea though and I think it will work. I don't know how well, but it will work.
5.4.11
Mashup Conundrum
I don't know what to do for my mashup. My original idea was to string together a bunch of clips of Stephen Fry being awesome* and calling it a day. But after thinking about it long and hard I've decided that even my idea of taking various clips from all the various projects Mr. Fry has been a part of and having him declare himself god would a) not really work as a mashup b) wouldn't be very long at all (I'm sure there's some sort of time component for video mashups) and c) would be far more complicated than I have time for. So now I'm not entirely sure what I should do for this project. I do know one thing: I'm not bloody well doing an audio mashup. It may seem simple to do an audio mashup, but I know deep in my soul that it really, really isn't and I don't want to mess with Audacity ever again (or at least for the rest of this semester.) I shall have to think on this now.**
*If you don't know who Stephen Fry is go to YouTube and search "qi." Watch whatever clip you like and you'll begin to understand how awesome Stephen Fry is.
**I have a cold. That's the excuse I'm using this week for any poor grammar that occur in this blog.
*If you don't know who Stephen Fry is go to YouTube and search "qi." Watch whatever clip you like and you'll begin to understand how awesome Stephen Fry is.
**I have a cold. That's the excuse I'm using this week for any poor grammar that occur in this blog.
31.3.11
Copyright, Mashups/Remixes, and Film Majors
A Warning: I'm excessively tired today. I will do my best to work through my tiredness, but if something doesn't quite make sense, that is why. Also I'm cramming a lot into one entry, so this is going to be kind of lengthy. I apologize.
Copyright
*Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert. I am not a copyright expert. I do not know the details of any given copyright act. If you are reading this looking for legal advice, leave now and ask a real lawyer or a real 3rd year law student.*
Copyright is a complicated and misunderstood beast. People in official positions tend to be hesitant around copyright and people who live their lives or make their livelihoods off of the internet tend to be disdainful of copyright.* People under a certain age or who hold certain political/ideological beliefs tend either to believe that copyright was created for "The Man" to better "The Man" and to screw everyone else (especially creators, whatever their ilk) or think that copyright is one of the last defenses against the world being ruled by hooligans. Obviously there are people who reside in the middle, but their voices tend not to be heard because the people on the extremes are absurdly loud. I'm not going to claim that copyright is perfect. It's not. There are aspects of copyright law that need to be improved to line up with how the world works now as opposed to twenty or even ten years ago. But because of the way a few government-backed commercial entities choose to enforce copyright, the entirety of copyright gets a bad name. But it's not all bad. I recently argued in my thesis, and had previously argued in a paper for the music law class I took in London, that ultimately copyright was created and to a certain still benefits creators of creative works. The issue, at least in my mind, is that people expect to get everything for free or that just by creating something they will earn money. When those things don't happen, they blame copyright because it's a little behind the times (which is the fault of politicians and lobbyists for groups who refuse to catch up with the present) and a fairly easy target. All of this frustrates me because I know that at the heart of copyright is a really good principle namely that a person can make money from something they create and can protect that work from being stolen by someone else (and if they do there will be consequences.) I think that nowadays people forget that because of jerks and idiots. So the next time you curse the name of copyright, think about what copyright helped to create and maybe invest some time in actually learning a bit about copyright outside of what your teachers tell you. You might just surprise yourself.
Mashups/Remixes
Some things are best discovered on your own. Some of my favourite pieces of literature, music, film, and television were discovered by mere coincidence and stumbling onto things. To me, mashups and remixes are things you should discover on your own. When placed in a class format, these mediums have a tendency to lose something in translation, something that can't be defined and can't be reattained once they are lost. I understand why some educators might want to incorporate mashups and/or remixes in their class, or at the very least discuss them, but to me there are more important things to talk about, to discuss, to learn. If I've learned anything in the past four years, I've learned that there really does have to be a certain amount of distance between what you're learning and when it happened for you to really understand the implications of that thing. I was trying to say that in class and I may not have gotten my point across as well as I would have liked, but there has to be a certain amount of distance for the true implications of an event to be understood. I love discovering new and exciting things, but I know I can't really analyze them until there's been some time between when I discovered it and when I analyze it. Others may not agree, but to me it's more important to have a solid foundation in what's come before than to spend all your time focusing only on the present. Perspective is an incredibly important thing and it's something that may be taken for granted when you spend all your time online (a medium that lives entirely in the present and never looks back.) So while I understand the arguments presented by Ms. McBride and Mr. Lamb, I don't agree with them.**
Film Majors
Here's a definition of what film studies is from Wikipedia***: Film studies is an academic discipline that deals with various theoretical, historical, and critical approaches to films. It is sometimes subsumed within media studies and is often compared to television studies. Film studies is less concerned with advancing proficiency in film production than it is with exploring the narrative, artistic, cultural, economic, and political implications of the cinema.
Here is a list of schools outside of New York and LA who have film majors:
*I may or may not be anthropomorphizing copyright right now. And so what if I am? You try writing a 10 page paper and spending countless hours thinking about something and not become a little attached to it.
**I should hasten to add that part of the reason I don't agree with them is that I have very old fashioned views on how education should work. Like 19th century ideas. I blame having to teach myself throughout most of K-12.
***The foremost repository of all knowledge, besides The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy obviously.
****This is where my sister goes. She's a Film and Video major. She got very upset when I told her what Prof. Groom said. This last part of the entry is mostly for her. And a little bit for me.
*****I'm not actually that sad that we don't have a film major. A) The last thing this school needs is more pretentious white people and b) I grew up with three cinephiles, I don't need my campus to be invaded by them.
Copyright
*Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert. I am not a copyright expert. I do not know the details of any given copyright act. If you are reading this looking for legal advice, leave now and ask a real lawyer or a real 3rd year law student.*
Copyright is a complicated and misunderstood beast. People in official positions tend to be hesitant around copyright and people who live their lives or make their livelihoods off of the internet tend to be disdainful of copyright.* People under a certain age or who hold certain political/ideological beliefs tend either to believe that copyright was created for "The Man" to better "The Man" and to screw everyone else (especially creators, whatever their ilk) or think that copyright is one of the last defenses against the world being ruled by hooligans. Obviously there are people who reside in the middle, but their voices tend not to be heard because the people on the extremes are absurdly loud. I'm not going to claim that copyright is perfect. It's not. There are aspects of copyright law that need to be improved to line up with how the world works now as opposed to twenty or even ten years ago. But because of the way a few government-backed commercial entities choose to enforce copyright, the entirety of copyright gets a bad name. But it's not all bad. I recently argued in my thesis, and had previously argued in a paper for the music law class I took in London, that ultimately copyright was created and to a certain still benefits creators of creative works. The issue, at least in my mind, is that people expect to get everything for free or that just by creating something they will earn money. When those things don't happen, they blame copyright because it's a little behind the times (which is the fault of politicians and lobbyists for groups who refuse to catch up with the present) and a fairly easy target. All of this frustrates me because I know that at the heart of copyright is a really good principle namely that a person can make money from something they create and can protect that work from being stolen by someone else (and if they do there will be consequences.) I think that nowadays people forget that because of jerks and idiots. So the next time you curse the name of copyright, think about what copyright helped to create and maybe invest some time in actually learning a bit about copyright outside of what your teachers tell you. You might just surprise yourself.
Mashups/Remixes
Some things are best discovered on your own. Some of my favourite pieces of literature, music, film, and television were discovered by mere coincidence and stumbling onto things. To me, mashups and remixes are things you should discover on your own. When placed in a class format, these mediums have a tendency to lose something in translation, something that can't be defined and can't be reattained once they are lost. I understand why some educators might want to incorporate mashups and/or remixes in their class, or at the very least discuss them, but to me there are more important things to talk about, to discuss, to learn. If I've learned anything in the past four years, I've learned that there really does have to be a certain amount of distance between what you're learning and when it happened for you to really understand the implications of that thing. I was trying to say that in class and I may not have gotten my point across as well as I would have liked, but there has to be a certain amount of distance for the true implications of an event to be understood. I love discovering new and exciting things, but I know I can't really analyze them until there's been some time between when I discovered it and when I analyze it. Others may not agree, but to me it's more important to have a solid foundation in what's come before than to spend all your time focusing only on the present. Perspective is an incredibly important thing and it's something that may be taken for granted when you spend all your time online (a medium that lives entirely in the present and never looks back.) So while I understand the arguments presented by Ms. McBride and Mr. Lamb, I don't agree with them.**
Film Majors
Here's a definition of what film studies is from Wikipedia***: Film studies is an academic discipline that deals with various theoretical, historical, and critical approaches to films. It is sometimes subsumed within media studies and is often compared to television studies. Film studies is less concerned with advancing proficiency in film production than it is with exploring the narrative, artistic, cultural, economic, and political implications of the cinema.
Here is a list of schools outside of New York and LA who have film majors:
- George Mason University****
- Virginia Commonwealth University
- Wesleyan University
- University of Chicago
- University of Pittsburgh
- Temple University
- Boston University
- Cornell University
- Yale University
- American University
- University of North Carolina School of the Arts
*I may or may not be anthropomorphizing copyright right now. And so what if I am? You try writing a 10 page paper and spending countless hours thinking about something and not become a little attached to it.
**I should hasten to add that part of the reason I don't agree with them is that I have very old fashioned views on how education should work. Like 19th century ideas. I blame having to teach myself throughout most of K-12.
***The foremost repository of all knowledge, besides The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy obviously.
****This is where my sister goes. She's a Film and Video major. She got very upset when I told her what Prof. Groom said. This last part of the entry is mostly for her. And a little bit for me.
*****I'm not actually that sad that we don't have a film major. A) The last thing this school needs is more pretentious white people and b) I grew up with three cinephiles, I don't need my campus to be invaded by them.
The Kinks or Tonight's Radio Show
I've written a number of entries in my other academic blog about the Kinks so instead of writing those entries again (in essences) I would suggest you just read those. And now the songs that were (and one that wasn't) played:
Playlist
*Instead of saying who the artist is (because obviously it's the Kinks) I'm giving you the album name which will be handy if you decide to obtain a legal copy of any of these songs. Which I really think you should.
Playlist
- You Really Got Me - Kinks*
- A Rockin' Roll Fantasy - Misfits
- Give The People What They Want - Give The People What They Want
- Starstruck - The Village Green Preservation Society
- The Village Green Preservation Society - The Village Green Preservation Society
- Come Dancing - State of Confusion
- A Well Respected Man - Kwyet Kinks EP
- David Watts - Something Else By the Kinks
- Celluloid Heroes - Everybody's in Showbiz
- Victoria - Arthur (Or the Decline of the British Empire)
- Picture Book - The Village Green Preservation Society
- Shangri-La - Arthur (Or the Decline of the British Empire)
- Better Things - Give the People What They Want
*Instead of saying who the artist is (because obviously it's the Kinks) I'm giving you the album name which will be handy if you decide to obtain a legal copy of any of these songs. Which I really think you should.
30.3.11
Project Complete
At the moment I'm currently exporting a medium sized movie from iMovies having finished my brief but appropriately summarized argument about the inherent darkness of Bright Young Things. I'm hoping my audience is smart and that the dialogue kind of speaks for itself (which is a large part of why I chose the clips I did.) I would like to thank Prof. Groom for letting me borrow the snowball, I really should get that back to him now. I will update this entry once I have the video uploaded to Vimeo (because YouTube doesn't like things that are longer than 10 minutes) and give some more details and possibly spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Update: The "video" will be available to watch in about a half hour as of 4:40pm. I have a class at the point and will provide a link and/or embed the video after that class. I'll also be writing the spoilery bits after my radio show, so expect that update around 9pm (because a girl's gotta eat.)
Here is the actual video essay. It has fairly good picture quality, don't know about audio but I assume it's good. Enjoy!
Update: The "video" will be available to watch in about a half hour as of 4:40pm. I have a class at the point and will provide a link and/or embed the video after that class. I'll also be writing the spoilery bits after my radio show, so expect that update around 9pm (because a girl's gotta eat.)
Here is the actual video essay. It has fairly good picture quality, don't know about audio but I assume it's good. Enjoy!
A video essay on the inherent darkness of Stephen Fry's film "Bright Young Things"
Obviously you can go to the actual website to see a slightly larger version29.3.11
Progress Continues
I have managed to cut my video down to 11 minutes and 57 seconds, but part of me is worried that I won't have enough time to actually talk. The thing about Vile Bodies and Bright Young Things is that they're very wordy and the dialogue is the most important thing, especially with my argument. Hopefully I'll be able to completely frame my argument in the few short moments where the scenes aren't focused on dialogue in a coherent manner, which if you've ever read this blog or listened to my radio show can be difficult at times. Also, once I post the video and you've watched it, you might notice I included a couple of "cheesy" wipes. The movie actually uses similar wipes, so I feel justified in using them as well. And finally Handbrake will convert .wmv into .mp4 and .mp4 do work in iMovies so I will be able to do my voice over that way. Actually getting in to do that might be tricky, but on the other hand the Pollard media lab does have iMovies and, quite coincidentally, I work and have a key to the Pollard media lab. Very hand, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)