Currently, “Copyrighted” is the default state of any creative piece. I think it is time this is changed to be Creative Commons – or something similar. I would distinguish also a right for a piece not to be spliced/abridged. Part of a set, do not distribute separately.
For one, this is the way fandoms view intellectual property, and, let’s face it – without fandoms, merch does not get sold. Additionally, it is through the enrichment of stories and content that better content is created.
I think of storytellers who retold and embellished other people’s stories, I think of folk songs passed down, re-interpreted and re-matched against other tunes, and a flurry of other great things that we’ve gotten from being free to rework, rehash and recombine, and then compare that against an imperative to ensure that only one body has the right to copy and distribute an expression for fear that it is inherently in the copying that money is to be made (a very Pre-War point of view).
Abiding by the book: in law, buskers playing popular songs are repeatedly breaching copyright, fan fictions are a theft of trademark, every design on TeeFury and other t-shirt site is a violation of rights on intellectual property. Taken to an alarmist extreme, referencing popular culture in a published or performed piece is potentially a breach of copyright (the walls surrounding fair use are not watertight – they’d need to be clear for starters).
I think we need to relax a bit. More money is wasted on legal battles than earned riding the waves of popularity and fandoms – who, by the way, really want other people to know about your material. Since we can’t simply say in court “Copyright sometimes applies,” I’d vote for more permissive licenses to be the legal standard. This does not exclude the ability to copyright a work, but a change would highlight the differences between the two licensing schemes, and open up further discussion as to what is really, truly necessary to foster creativity without causing the collapse of creative professions.
We’re not leading the way to change the world, indeed we may not all be able to muster such energy when still trying to sort out our own… it’s another thing altogether to say “why the hell should we try?” Some commentators even went so far as to suggest the “big problems” should not concern smart people.
One that stood out to me was the following:
Why the HELL would you go out of your way to broadly sweep a whole section of population under “they don’t deserve our good graces?” Are you actually in the 1% we’ve been squabbling with this past year-or-so?
Oh hang on, wait – there’s also the widening 20-80 divide:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80%
I added my 2 cents to the thread as follows. Now to see if I get that penny for the thought.
I’d expect nothing less from a 1st world culture in general that says “do what YOU want to do,” “find YOUR dream,” “YOU’re the most important to YOU.” Reading the comments on this thread so far, it is evident that we’d rather remain blissfully ignorant and shift the burden elsewhere.
It’s gruelling work to sort out the world’s problems, and with no one-right-answer, fraught with the possibility of failure, as some commenters here can attest: one commenter demonstrates the core attitudinal problem – it takes effort to connect with someone from a different social background, with different concerns, priorities and fears for continued livelihood, to try and understand the problem, and formulate some answer, ANY answer, but at least to give a damn and TRY; some of us just aren’t up to the task (though we can’t necessarily be blamed for that much so long as we’re not in denial). It’s much easier to cater to the quick-wins, the plugged-in smart-phone-wielding, TV-watching, internet-addicted, money-squandering market and keep them happy. Fast money, cheap glory.
The first commenters demonstate the very sentiment under fire, that rather than recognizing that there are much more worthwhile questions to ponder than how to make the next best cheap app on the most expensive phones to date, or how to make their privileged lives even more privileged, they prefer to suggest that Nnaemeka is the whiny my-problems-aren’t-solved person. Thing is, privileged netizen, YOUR problems ARE being solved.
Thankfully I too know the kind of people “O(‘_’)O_Bush” points out, those who are toiling away, and even setting up locally successful ventures, to make communities, environments and the Environment better; though it’s either an uneven distribution, in terms of attention gained vs actual work being done and achievements being made. I suspect we all know some such people. But we’d rather comment on the “celebrities” than focus on the great things happening on our own street.
We’ve riled as the 99% against the 1% and the sheer injustice of it all, but we forget that we’re still part of the upper 20% that are still quite plumply sitting on another lowly 80%. We are the 20%, and we are unashamed.
Lainey’s talk at TEDx screams bullshit at its finest. Trying to describe gossip as a so to speak “high-brow” occupation, Lainey tries to make gossip look intellectual by inserting questions about social acceptance of gays, approaching the topic of women’s rights, and pointing out that even the ancient Egyptians were doing it
On the particular point of the Egyptians, she didn’t even give a context for the text she was paraphrasing – it could have been a parable (so a warning tale – maybe even homosexuality was being used as an “evident crime” plot point), a biography (probably gossip then, or defamation), propaganda… who knows? And did the people aside from the scribes really give a damn? Because she then goes on to claim, from this, that gossip reflects the social more of society as a whole. I’d rather not be lumped in with her vision of what society is in its entirety…
The additional questions and discussion Lainey adds otherwsie are of course most welcome – but they are not found in the gossip rags and around the gossip tables. If anything, gossip rags reinforce our prejudices, sensationalize the mundane, and demonize people who we should be trying to understand. Gossip leads to (sometimes false) accusations and witch-hunts. Gossip amongst friends about other friends facilitates the spreading of misconceptions, if not lies. The examples Lainey gives are prime examples of that behaviour.
Below are some of the topics approached
Kirsten Stewart cheating on [Edward’s actor] – Lainey claims that in this maelstrom, gossipers are discussing and sharing their morals -but it’s more like gossip is reinforcing the woman-in-her-place ideal. “How dare she? She got the perfect guy.” Good for him, he got a promotion. Shame the slut.
Celebrities with babies become massive talking points – taking jubilant celebrities’ talk about being mom as reference points is… sad. This isn’t information, it’s gushing. From the celebrity side it’s plain vanity. From the media side, it’s a marketing opportunity.
Forgiving abusive men – again, the talking amongst the fans is reinforcing the prejudices rather than leading the discussion – witnessed again in the promotion of the violent men, shaming of women.
Travolta and the male masseuse – are gossipers really saying “let’s reconsider our viewpoints on the meaning of being male?” Lainey clearly states that the discussion is focused on 1) potential loss of fan confidence in the image, 2) damage to profit and marketability. Acceptance of homosexuality? Who said that?
Lainey remains a subject, not an observer. I’m waiting for her sociological study. In the mean time, I call bullshit.