Have you ever watched an illegal movie online? Or downloaded Illegal music? In this day in age, almost 70 percent of people can say they have illegally downloaded some sort of media. In some cases, people have been notified by copyright, and been sued for the misuse of the material. For example, in the documentary RIP Remix The Movie, we learn about Girl Talk who is a famous artist that uses his computer to mash up other artists songs to create a whole new song. Are his sample-based songs that people all over the world enjoy illegal? Or do the embrace the collaboration and personal creativeness? The biggest question is do they in fact violate copyright? Through this movie we learn all about copyright and its legal aspects. There are two types of people categorized in this movie and it’s the “copy right” people and “copy left” people. “Copy Right” people believe that support copyright laws. “Copy Left” supports the laws, but is less harsh in sharing and charging. “Under copy left, the author claims a copyright on the work and makes a statement in the form of a license that other people have the right to use, modify, and share the work so long as their modified versions are put under that same license and that anyone receiving a copy of the work — whether modified or not — must also be given these same rights. If someone does not follow the terms set by the copyright holder it becomes copyright infringement, which is subject to the full penalties of the legal system.”[1] Through these copyright laws, we learn about fair use. Fair use is another main point made in this documentary. Bitlaw states “The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.”[2] Another big argument that people make about copyright is where the money from the fines really goes. People go to court and lose large sums of money due to this issue, for example the Capital V. Thomas case. “…The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was initially required to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that she shared on the file-sharing program Kazaa. However, there was an error in the original trial, and the second trial ended with Thomas-Rasset having to pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she infringed upon, totaling $1.9 million.”[3] These 1.9 million dollars in this case did not even go to the artists that had their music shared. So what is copyright protecting if its not the artists work? Its hard to find information on where lawsuit money goes, but when you buy an artists CD, only 13 percent of what you spent actually goes to the artists hard work. [4] Copyright is a huge issue today due to the growth in technology, but is it a system being taken to far?
[1] What is Copy Left? http://jxself.org/what-is-copyleft.shtml (April 15th 2015) [2] BITLAW http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html (April 15th 2015) [3] New Media Rights http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_legal_consequences_can_there_be_illegally_downloading_movies_or_music (April 15th 2015) [4] BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23840744 (April 15th 2015) Judith Miller was a past journalist for the New York Times Washington Bureau. She ended up in a career ending controversy after she revealed faulty information on Iraq’s WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction. She did this before and after the invasion in 2003 was determined false information, causing troops to go to Baghdad and investigate a program that was never there.[1] Miller was then involved in the Plame Affair, where the status of Valerie Plame became more greatly known. When Miller was asked to name her sources in the CIA leak, she refused. When refusing to release where her information came from, she became even more known as an unreliable journalist. After her second scandal, she retired in 2005. After all the controversies she caused in the past, a common question is, where is she now? On April 4th 2015, an article was posted on her recent defense on Iraq writings. She stated that Hans Blix bears more responsibility for the Iraq war than she does. Everything she stated as a defense was backed up in this article with sources from Hans Blix. Quoted in this article are her words in her book that will be released on Tuesday, April 7th 2015. [2] Miller tries to blame Blix for all her faults. For example, the inspections taking place in Iraq. Miller claims that Blix was against war, but all of Blix’s information on the matter was correct. The bombing that occurred after was not his fault. The article states “Blix made clear that the process required more time. He wasn't going to get more time, however. The bombing started less than a week later. It wasn't his idea. It wasn't his fault.”[3] Since Miller has left the New York Times, she is currently a member of The Council of Foreign relations, and still is convinced that her myths caused did not cause the invasion of Baghdad to occur. She states “But the “stubborn myths” that remain about the Iraq war, she concludes, are not the ones that lured the US to invade. They are the ones that continue to hang over her reputation.”[4]
[1] The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/03/judith-miller-essay-wmd-saddam-hussein-iraq-war, (April 7th 2015) [2] Crooks and Liars, http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/judy-miller-hans-blix-bears-more, (April 6th 2015) [3] Crooks and Liars, http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/judy-miller-hans-blix-bears-more, (April 6th 2015) [4] The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/03/judith-miller-essay-wmd-saddam-hussein-iraq-war, (April 7th 2015) The United States of Fear
Civil liberty is defined as “The rights of people to do or say things that are not illegal without being stopped or interrupted by the government.”[1] During this period in time, our privacy and civil liberties have seriously been put in jeopardy. The government has been taking our personal information like never before, but a common response from an average American is, “But I have nothing to hide.” People categorized in the “Nothing to hide” group believe that it doesn’t matter if the government takes away their civil liberties, because it won’t effect them if they’re not doing anything wrong. The main point to this issue in our government is not the punishment aspect, but the personal privacy aspect. Someone against these actions of the government once made a point asking to the nothing to hide people, “Why do they have curtains on their house?”[2] The common response is personal privacy in your own home. How does that personal privacy differ from our privacy through text messages, online searching, our license plates, etc.? One main reason people don’t care about the lack of privacy through technology is because they cannot see it, out of sight out of mind. “Who would not be embarrassed if all of their most intimate details were exposed? Fences and curtains are ways to ensure a measure of privacy, not indicators of criminal behavior. Privacy is a fundamental part of a dignified life.”[3] Although you may be doing nothing illegal behind your curtains in your home, you prefer to not be watched, and this is a prime example of why we don’t want our government taking away our civil liberties. It is extremely unconstitutional. Even though you think you may not have anything to hide, you definitely have something to fear. “Living under the constant gaze of government surveillance can produce long-lasting social harm: if citizens are just a little more fearful, a little less likely to freely associate, a little less likely to dissent – the aggregate chilling effect can close what was once an open society.”[4] Through the invasion of the government it is possible that we can lose aspects in our form of democracy. Another point is how oblivious we are to what really goes on in our secretive government. We don’t always know exactly what to fear because there are so many secrets are kept from us. We can’t confidently say we have nothing to fear, or nothing to hide. “We need to know more about what information the government is collecting about millions of innocent Americans. We need to know more about the secret legal interpretations that the government is relying on to monitor our communications. And we need to know more about what the government does with the trillions of bits of electronic data it is amassing in its files. We need these answers because, even if we have nothing to hide, that does not mean we want to live in a society where nothing is private.”[5] As citizens with rights, we should definitely fear our unforthcoming government that we have today. [1] Merrian-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20liberty (March 19th, 2015) [2] The Chronicle Review, http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ (March 22nd 2015) [3] ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear (March 22nd 2015) [4] ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear (March 22nd 2015) [5] ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear (March 22nd 2015)
Some of the most popular forms of entertainment are television shows. Television shows have been popular for several of years ever since televisions started broadcasting in 1936. Although it doesn’t seem obvious while were following different shows, the filming varies throughout them. For example, the two shows, Modern Family and Friends. The difference between them is the amount of camera’s that are used to film. Friends, is a multi-camera setup, while Modern Family is a single camera set up. While watching them, we don’t focus on the switching of cameras during the viewing, but when you focus; there is a major different between the two comedies. Friends is filmed in front of a live studio audience, while Modern Family, is not. Jack Picone states, “Single-cameras, because of the way they are shot, typically don’t have live studio audiences and most eschew a replacement laugh track.”[1] When watching the video clip posted below on Friends, we see that the angles constantly change. These changes occur depending on whose talking, where the producer wants the audience to focus, etc. This is also because of the stage like studios where they film. Picone states “The limited locations of a three-camera sitcom also derive from its theater-like stage. Only so many sets can be built and fit into a single studio.”[2]In the Modern Family clip posted below, we see a one camera set up where you are looking from one angle at all times, and there is a constant movement of the camera instead of a still focus. During the filming of these shows, there are several people and roles that make the show happen. For friends in the back stage filming video below, it is stated that there are a group of writers, and the executive producer, Adam Chase, who writes a script. It then, “Gets thrown on the table, where the entire writing staff gives input and makes suggestions.”[3] Before the episode is filmed, there is rehearsal. When viewing the video, you see that all the actors still have scripts in their hands; they also constantly repeat if they don’t perform correctly. This is a point where there is time for practice and improvement, the narrator states, “The writers watch, scripts in hand. If a joke isn’t funny, they are looking at a long night of re-writing.”[4] The video then goes into talking about cameras. They state that for sitcoms, multiple cameras are used in every scene. Friends, in this case uses 4 and sometimes 5, for certain scenes. When filming modern family, this differs because there is one camera constantly moving, following the actors and zooming in, instead of the constant switching of angles. We also see that the camera is at one angle at all times, and there’s constantly people adjusting the camera settings. When Lily, the baby in the show, is crying, it is easy to film scenes without her in the stroller because of the angle and zooming from the single camera setup. I found this interesting and comparative to watching The Pulse rehearse and film at Sacred Heart University. The Pulse filmed on a multiple camera set up, using three cameras. I watched as focus was changed to three different angles of the broadcast. As each camera switched, the people being filmed altered their focus to the camera being used. A similarity to the rehearsal of Friends was the scripts. During the practice run, The Pulse read off scripts just like friends, and the cameras were positioned to block the scripts out. I was shocked to find when I walked in that the studio did not seem “film ready” there were wires everywhere and it was messy all around them. (picture to your right) I later learned that all of that doesn’t matter when filming, simply because the cameras can be positioned to block all of that out, by putting your the cameras focus on what is supposed to be viewed. The pictures below of The Pulse set show the changing of cameras, and where the actors changed their focus. I also found this filming similar to Friends because in one scene, Monica simply doesn’t like how she performs a line and simply re states it. During The Pulse filming, the student made the mistake of speaking too soon, pronouncing something wrong etc., and they simply did what Monica’s character did, and re performed it to their liking, and the producers liking. It shows the improvement aspect of rehearsal. Although it seemed extremely difficult, the filming process when watching The Pulse film was very interesting to me. Watching them change the color of the video stood out to me, because although while looking at the video being filmed without the white balance, it looks fairly normal. When they did the white balance, the whole picture changed. It made the coloring 10x better, and comparing it to the original it was a major difference. That to me was especially interesting to watch and really gives us an idea of what technology has made available to us today. [1]New York Film Academy, https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/evolution-sitcom-part-2/ (Feb 22nd 2015) [2] New York Film Academy, https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/evolution-sitcom-part-2/ (Feb 22nd 2015) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUjw2pAfesA (Friends Filming) Feb 19th, 2015 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUjw2pAfesA (Friends Filming) Feb 19th, 2015
During the time period of the 1840’s- 1940’s a form of entertainment known as “Minstrel Shows” took place. During those years, segregation, stereotypes, and racism were at a high point in time. Through the minstrel shows, workingmen were dressed as plantation slaves, also known as “black faces”. The men dancing in these shows imitated African American dance moves. To blacken their faces, burnt cork or greasepaint was used, and to for clothing, they wore outrageous costumes that mocked the African American race. Some of the most famous songs that were danced to included, The Dixie, Camp Town Races, Oh Susannah, and My Old Kentucky Home. There will also reappearing characters, such as Jim Crow, Mr Tambo, and Zip Coon. (pictures below). Although these were awful forms of entertainment that took place, the Minstrel shows are considered a large part of history. There are beliefs that the Minstrel shows never really left and have appeared in present day, but expressed in different forms. For example, present day white rappers. To me, white rappers are a prime example of modern day minstrel shows because culturally, it is proven that black rappers completely outnumber white rappers. Although they are not dressed in black, they are performing something dominant by African American artists, and in a way, mocking them. Akala, an African American states his opinion, saying, “Old white men is running this rap shit. Hip-Hop is a modern day minstrel show.” His interviewer Joe Collen explains that “A handful of powerful corporations now control the business, playing down to the lowest, most misogynistic, racist stereotypes. In one moving moment, after a touching mention of Trayvon Martin, which brought applause from the audience, Akala lists the names of a series of unarmed African Americans killed by the police. “Raise your hand if you’ve heard of these people” he asks. Barely anyone recognized the victims. In the 80s, he explained, it was the hip-hop MCs who kept the black community informed about such atrocities. Of course, the rich, white, old men who run the industry would never allow such potent resistance in their “product””. Another example is shown through a modern day TV show, called “the producers”. Marcus Gilmer who wrote an article on current black television show states, “Harkening back to the technique used by the main characters in Mel Brooks’s The Producers, Delacroix recruits Manray, a homeless street performer, and his partner Womack to star in “Mantan- The New Millennium Minstrel Show.” The show is a modern-day minstrel show, set on an Alabama plantation circa the time of slavery with black actors wearing even blacker makeup.” Despite the controversy in this show, it becomes a hit. This shows us that even today, almost in a hidden form stereotypes and racism still occur. Minstrel shows may be seen as apart of history that is now in the past, but to me, stereotypes in modern day entertainment still show the qualities of minstrel shows even today. References and quotes found from- http://www.notcoming.com/features/bamboozled/ http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/akala-hip-hop-modern-day-minstrel-show Chris Kyle, a real navy seal, has his story told through the movie “American Sniper”, directed by Clint Eastwood. Chris Kyle was a man who lived for god, country and his family in that specified order. Kyle always wanted to fulfill his dream of becoming a “cowboy” in Texas. That is until the bombing of the U.S. embassy in the 1998. This tragic event motivates Kyle to join the navy seals. Soon after enlisting, he meets his wife, gets married and is sent out for war. His occupation is sniper for the seals. Although he saves countless lives, he also holds the record for most confirmed kills in combat ever at one hundred and sixty, thus earning him the nickname, “The Legend”.
His family waits for him at home, but he struggles to overcome the images he witnessed while at war. He suffers from PTSD (Post traumatic stress disorder), yet still decides to serve his country for 3 more tours in Iraq. After his fourth and final tour Kyle finally decides it’s time to end his career as the most prolific navy seal in our countries brief history. Upon returning home, he seeks out help for his PTSD, and is finally able to live a normal life with his family. Kyle consistently sought out fellow ex Navy Seals to help them deal with either physical injuries or PTSD as a result of their time served. Chris Kyle was killed on Feb 2nd 2013 on American soil. A fellow Marine veteran gunned him down. Kyle was trying to help this man deal with his PTSD. This movie exemplifies Chris Kyle’s heroism, by saving hundreds of American troops. In order to save so many lives, Kyle was forced to carry out his duty, which ultimately is the reason he became the United State’s most deadly sniper. His celebrated statistics brought out a lot of controversy in our culture. Michael Moore, a movie critic tweeted about the movie, “My uncle was killed by sniper WW2. We were taught that snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. Invaders r worse.” Moore is stating how we shouldn’t see people who kill others from far away as heroes. He does not see Chris Kyle as a hero, because he had record amounts of kills. It is simple to recognize the kill count and dismiss Kyle as a ruthless killer, but as a free citizen of this country, one cannot ignore a few simple questions; what about all the people he saved? How could he have been so courageous to continue to fight for our country? Moore simply doesn’t want war to happen, and believes that the people trying to end war do more good than a sniper killing people in war do. Moore is contradicting himself, because a sniper carrying out his duty in essentliy doing his part to bring an end to war, just the same as any soldier in active duty. Actor Seth Rogan compared “American Sniper” to a sort of Nazi propoganda film that also celebrated a sniper carrying out his duty for the Germans. Tommy Bran, a business owner, disagrees with the opinions of Moore and Rogan in his statement, “For 43 years, I have been a small business owner because of the Chris Kyle’s of the world and I have a right not to serve the Michael Moore’s or Seth Rogan’s. That guy (Chris Kyle) is a hero.” Clearly, there is a fair amount of people that believe “American Sniper” is a movie simply portraying a hero as someone who shoots and is the deadliest sniper in US history, but not everyone likes that. Thankfully, there are several people who see it the other way including Don Mann. Former navy seal, Mann holds the same opinion. He states, “Without people like Chris Kyle, Americans would face more dangers. The movie gives America something it has lacked since the start of the war -- a war hero on a truly national, cultural scale.” He also explains what a sniper truly is, “Snipers believe in their hearts that when they neutralize, or take out a threat; they are saving the lives of their teammates, other military personnel, or other innocent people. Their target hit lists typically include terrorists, or people preparing to cause grave harm or death to the innocent.” Don Mann’s statement should be held in the highest esteem because he is an actual Navy Seal. His insight relays what it truly means to be an American sniper and factual reasons as to why they are true heroes. Personally, I think what Mann has to say on Chris Kyle being a sniper, really overpowers anything people such as Michael Moore, and Seth Rogan had to say because of their military ignorance, with regard to Chris Kyle. This is my representation on the plot of the movie. It is up to you as an individual to watch the movie and decide if he is truly heroic or just someone that takes it upon himself to kill others. Quotes found from: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/24/conservative-logic-iraq-war-sniper-chris-kyle-hero.html http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/01/27/michael-moore-and-seth-rogen-banned-from-michigan-restaurant-after-sniper/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/102376155 In the beginning of Mark Osborne's "More", a dull grey man is dreaming about youth, and playing surrounded by a life full of color. The grey man wakes up to find the life he is in is completely lacking life and fun, it is grey and boring. Although, inside his stomach is a weird color filled energy. The grey man goes to work in a factory, and is miserable. He wants to invent something to make everyone happy and live in a colorful world, which is what is missing in his adult life. He wants to invent something that will give everyone the experience to happy and color-filled. To do this, he takes what he has been making in the factory, and pours his soul into his work. He takes the color filled energy from his stomach and puts it into the lenses of the happy glasses. He finds that when you put these glasses on, the world is perceived as happy and is full of vibrant colors. It changes the way people look at the world. He calls his invention "Bliss". He becomes very rich and famous, but then as time goes on, he's become something he once hated. He pours himself into his work to the point he is completely drained of any color he once had inside him. He loses part of himself. This movie says a lot about society in the modern world because of our unconscious worship of material goods. These goods have the ability to grant instant satisfaction, when we ourselves cannot be satisfied with the reality of everyday life. Through the use of the color grey throughout the city, drab music, and difference in body language of the dull grey man, the director manipulates us to feel hopeful for him during the beginning of the film, but as the story develops, one cannot help but to feel disappointed with him because of his inability to change. The idea of change for the grey man was what initially caused us to feel hopeful for him in the first place. This story is similar to "The Legend Of Faust" because both of the main characters give up their soul in hopes to create a better life for themselves.
|
Haily ReatherfordMy opinions and reviews Archives
April 2015
Categories |