We Live In Public and The Revolution

Last week we watched the documentary called “We Live in Public.” This documentary made me think about things that I never really considered before. I never would have thought about how I would act in an environment where EVERYTHING I did was being recorded and people were purposely trying to break me. I probably never considered this because I would not choose to put myself in a situation like this one. I like my live to be private. Therefore, living it in public would not really make sense.

I think that Josh Harris is a very smart man. I also believe that sometimes people are too smart for their own good. Sometimes people are so smart that they are strange. These strange people have brilliant minds and create brilliant things, but there comes a point where the brilliance gets lost in the insanity. I believe that that is the case with Josh Harris. He had great ideas and he was always doing things before the rest of the world was ready for them. He was innovative and creative and he was always ready to start something new. I also believe that sometimes you can be so smart that you do stupid things. Sometimes you’re so smart that you forget about the value of other human being and you begin to purely see how you can use them for your own gain and benefit. I think that when someone gets to this level, it needs to somehow be contained and controlled.

I don’t think that his experiment with everyone living in public should have been legal. This was an environment where people were pushed to their mental and emotional limits and they had access to guns 24/7? That does not make any sense to me. At any time, someone could have snapped and killed every person in there. I also do not understand how the people doing the evaluations and providing security felt morally right doing the job that they were doing. I could not make myself do those types of things to another human being. It was sad. There was no value for human life. People began to lose their self respect and dignity. In addition, in this experiment, there was a child under the age of 13. I do not agree with this at all. In class, Dr. R said how is it different from a child being on the internet or on a social networking site. It is different because parents can control what their children see online. They can monitor them and place restrictions on certain websites. When everything is being broadcast, from sex to defecating, there is no control over what the child is exposed to. This should have been considered child endangerment. Seeing these types of things at a young age can cause serious psychological problems for the child in the future and they could have trouble having normal relationships with people. This was supposed to be a short entry so I will stop my rant on that topic now.

On the topic of The Feminist Movement, I was enlightened hearing about the debate between Dr. R, her colleagues, and Shayne Lee. I was surprised by Shayne Lee’s lack of professionalism and tact. I was embarrassed that this intellectual black man would stoop to such a level. I was impressed with the way Dr. R handled things and I was proud that she was my professor. Many times people get so caught up in emotions that they cannot have a truly intellectual debate or argument without attacking the other person or people (i.e. Shayne Lee).  Dr. R was able to do this in a very tactful way. I also enjoyed hearing Sarah Jones’s “Your Revolution.” It is amazing that the things she was talking about then are still an issue today. It makes me wonder…is it ever going to change?

Make-Up Post for March 23

I missed class on March 23 because I was in St. Louis for the National Society of Black Engineers National Convention. I missed the speaker that we had that week so I am going to post about my trip and how it relates to what we study in class.

Technology was used in several ways on this trip. To get to the convention, we had to register online and pay our money online. We left for St. Louis at 5 in the morning, and to get everyone coordinated we used cell phones to call and text one another. During the convention, we kept up with everyone using Twitter, texting and mass text messaging. Also, when we met new people we told them to follow us on Twitter. One of us would give out our Twitter name or receive a Twitter name and we would all find everyone from there. One night, we wanted to go to IHOP, but we didn’t know where it was so I looked it up on Google Maps on my phone and got the directions from there. After a session one morning we were hungry but did not know where to go and get food. One of the guys used his phone and found a deli that was not far from where we were. This location was great because it was very cold and it even snowed two days that we were there

Not only did we use technology for social networking and getting directions, but also during the different informational sessions, PowerPoint and Excel were used to explain things and provide information in a format that was easy to comprehend.

While in St. Louis, I had an English paper and assignment due. The only way that I could turn them in was online. The internet in the hotel was not reliable, however. So I emailed my professor from my phone and asked if I could turn my assignments in when I got back on campus because I was having technical difficulties at the hotel. Luckily my phone has email and I could use the 3G connection instead of relying on a wireless frequency.

This shows how much we depend on technology in our daily lives. We use our cell phones not only for social reasons, but also to get directions, do homework, and find the resources that we need to survive. We will be able to keep up with the different people we met because we added them on FaceBook and followed them on Twitter. When we go to the convention next year, we will be able to find the people we met and meet up with them again by using social media. Obviously, without the internet I could not complete my assignments for school either. There is a strong dependence on the internet to do our daily activities and keep up with the way the world is evolving socially. 

Copyright in the Digital Age

I enjoyed watching "Copyright Criminals" in class last Wednesday. It elaborated on many things that I already knew about and some that I had never though of before. Some of my opinions and positions will we expressed in the answers to the questions below.


1. In your opinion, is sampling a form of copyright infringement? Explain your position.

No, in my opinion, sampling is not a form of copyright infringement as long as the person whose work is being sampled receives payment. If the person does not receive any sort of compensation, then I do not think it is fair. The artists should be honored that someone felt their work was so good, or influential, that they want to use parts of it over again. 

4. Does repurposing a piece of music always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived? Does it always cut into the profits of the owner of the original recording? Why or why not?

No, repurposing a piece of music does not always have a detrimental effect on the way the original recording is perceived. In fact, repurposing a piece of music would likely have a positive effect on the original recording's perception. For example, in 2003, Kanye West released a song called "Through the Wire."

In this song, he sampled Chaka Khan's song "Through the Fire" that was released in 1985. 

Most people already knew Chaka Khan's song, but if you did not, after finding out about it, people listened to it. In addition, when the original song comes on the radio, it feels like you know that song too because you have heard different parts of it before. As a result, people are singing along to songs that they never would have known without another artist sampling the song. Many times, when people figure out that part of a song came from an older song, they download it or YouTube it so they can hear what the original sounded like. This would actually increase the profits of the owner the original recording. In addition, if the song was not that good before, someone else using it is not going to hurt the sales because the sales were not good in the first place.

7. Do legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled or do these actions protect the artists’ interests? Explain why you feel that way.

I feel that legal actions against sampling limit the exposure of artists whose work is sampled. I feel this way because when an artist samples another artist's work, he or she brings popularity to it. If a song is sampled that was once popular, but has since been forgotten about, then that song will regain some popularity. If people never mentioned old songs, sampled old songs, remixed old songs, or remade old songs, then the songs would likely be forgotten about as a whole. Sometimes, when an artist even mentions another song it makes the listener go find that song and listen to it again. Legal actions against sampling are not helping artists; in many ways, they are hindering them.