In the reading I found myself sort of skeptical of what exactly the driving point was. I do believe that most things in life are "invented, unseen rules of culture." Most of what we do is invented. 90 percent of the feel good teacher inservice topics that I have listened to are invented nonsense that means mostly nothing to almost everyone. There are a lot of unseen constraints put on our every day lives that we live in fear of, and can't stop our worrying about. My question was how is the authors point of view any different from the other invented things I encounter everyday? I am not quite convinced that the perspective of this book is much different than other things I have already heard. There I said it. I do agree that your frame of mind can change the way your life goes. Having a good attitude and choosing to see things in a positive light can make a difference, but other than that I'm not sure that I have taken away anything with more meaning than that. I am reminded of the movie office space, where Peter the main character spends all his time in the beginning of the movie staying inside the invented framework of what a good employee should appear to be. He then gets hypnotized to drop that unseen barrier from his mind and his worries melt away. He is honest about how he feels and what he does and nothing but success comes his way, although now he is the opposite of the model employee. Sometimes I think it would be better to not conform to all the unnecessary things in my professional life and just do the job the way I know it would best get done, yet somehow I don't think success would find me the way it did for Peter. As for the A thing... I totally feel an A is only a reflection of the fact that you interpreted what the teacher wanted successfully. It has little to do with your ability or intelligence. If I wrote one of those letters I would probably say I got an A because I assessed you (teacher) and your personality, read between the lines of your directions and did what I thought you wanted me to. That's it. I wouldn't write all that fluff stuff about how I became such a wonderful person after the class... unless of course I thought the teacher wanted me to write about fluffing myself up. There I said it.
Posted by Lauren Schneck at 10:54 AM
Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
1 comments:
meli1456 said...
Very good point Lauren. I agree totally. My problem is all the fluff we have to go through in the classroom and put our students through to prove we are doing our job. I could probably cover two academic years in one school year, if I didn't have to assess students with a test that tells me exactly what I already know. Also, if I didn't spend days listening to speakers, who have never been in the classroom tell me how to teach, when I thought that's what I went to school for, to learn to teach.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
5/31 Wimba
There's a lot to digest this week. Besides the course work it seems like there is so much to do for the lit review and now I realize the Capstone project. I did not know we were supposed to redo the formatting for the Lit review. I was so excited to get the go ahead last month that it was ready, I just turned it in immediately. It seems like there is a lot to do for the Capstone project; I will have to double check my references. I think it is exciting about the Publishing project. I am surprised to hear, only 5% go on to be published, however I understand also. I am so worn out from this year, I just want to be done. I do plan on keeping the Mobile Me account, so may one day, I will reconsider! (oh, for teachers, I think you can get a Mobile Me account for even less)
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Week 1 Comment 2 John's Blog
Johns FullSail Blog:
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wk1: Good Copy Bad Copy
Though it was longer than I expected when I sat down to look at it, Good Copy Bad Copy was an interesting documentary. I t truly generated the most passionate responses I have had to date regarding Copyright; even from the standpoint of a creative professional.
I can’t help but wonder throughout the piece if the responses from those who infringe would be the same if it was their work. Honestly I kept thinking that the reason most were so cavalier about their efforts was because it was someone else’s.
I thought a lot of the Copyright myth #6 that says that an original work created from someone else's work belongs to me. When I watched the segments on GirlTalk and Tecno Brega, each seem to show some form of creative expression, but when I found myself trying to see things from their standpoint they point out the holes in that theory by, instead of pointing out the original recordings created and hanging their hat on that rationale; choosing to either point out others that have done it and not been penalizing (Tecno Brega/DangerMouse’s Gray Album) or saying that they aren’t hurting anyone and current laws are “inhibiting the flow of culture and Music” (GirlTalk)
On another note, as I watched the rest of the video I noticed that that most of the violators did not care much either because it wasn’t a crime in their country or because it wasn’t work from their country For example, The Nigerian Piracy trade did not care about pirating "foreign" movies because, unlike Nigerian producers, the foreign producers didn't come in to their shops so the were less likely to get arrested. In Sweden, the piracy, according to Pirate Bay, wasn’t illegal, though the work they shared wasn’t Swedish work.
Being a creative, I straddle the fence on creative freedom, but I don’t think that because you like what I do, you are automatically entitled to it without my permission because you are a consumer. Using that rationale, it won’t be around long because it is no longer profitable for the source of the work to bother producing it.
My Comments:
I think it is very interesting that people in other countries don't care if they steal other's work, as long as they can't get caught. I would've thought that there would be international laws that govern these people. It is a shame we can't all just have respect for other's hard work and make sure they get credit for it. I do remember, though, when music piracy was in the news so big, that there were artists that said they didn't care if people downloaded their music for free, because they weren't getting money from it anyway. I think a lot more time and effort needs to go into creating laws that are clear and concise, that protect the creator, only!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wk1: Good Copy Bad Copy
Though it was longer than I expected when I sat down to look at it, Good Copy Bad Copy was an interesting documentary. I t truly generated the most passionate responses I have had to date regarding Copyright; even from the standpoint of a creative professional.
I can’t help but wonder throughout the piece if the responses from those who infringe would be the same if it was their work. Honestly I kept thinking that the reason most were so cavalier about their efforts was because it was someone else’s.
I thought a lot of the Copyright myth #6 that says that an original work created from someone else's work belongs to me. When I watched the segments on GirlTalk and Tecno Brega, each seem to show some form of creative expression, but when I found myself trying to see things from their standpoint they point out the holes in that theory by, instead of pointing out the original recordings created and hanging their hat on that rationale; choosing to either point out others that have done it and not been penalizing (Tecno Brega/DangerMouse’s Gray Album) or saying that they aren’t hurting anyone and current laws are “inhibiting the flow of culture and Music” (GirlTalk)
On another note, as I watched the rest of the video I noticed that that most of the violators did not care much either because it wasn’t a crime in their country or because it wasn’t work from their country For example, The Nigerian Piracy trade did not care about pirating "foreign" movies because, unlike Nigerian producers, the foreign producers didn't come in to their shops so the were less likely to get arrested. In Sweden, the piracy, according to Pirate Bay, wasn’t illegal, though the work they shared wasn’t Swedish work.
Being a creative, I straddle the fence on creative freedom, but I don’t think that because you like what I do, you are automatically entitled to it without my permission because you are a consumer. Using that rationale, it won’t be around long because it is no longer profitable for the source of the work to bother producing it.
My Comments:
I think it is very interesting that people in other countries don't care if they steal other's work, as long as they can't get caught. I would've thought that there would be international laws that govern these people. It is a shame we can't all just have respect for other's hard work and make sure they get credit for it. I do remember, though, when music piracy was in the news so big, that there were artists that said they didn't care if people downloaded their music for free, because they weren't getting money from it anyway. I think a lot more time and effort needs to go into creating laws that are clear and concise, that protect the creator, only!
Week 1 Comment 1 Ishia Granger's Blog
Ishia's Blog:
If only “Good Copy Bad Copy” had a cleaner version. While I clearly understand the definition of copyright, the areas of interpretation are very murky according to the videos. As an undergraduate student my English professor gave a lecture on oral and written literary traditions. It was based on the premise that works have a tradition of recycling themselves. One storylines inspires another and then another. How many times have we read or watched boy meets girl, boy loses girl and then gets girl back (or so the story goes.) Of course, this was nearly two decades ago.
There is nothing new under the sun. Isn’t that what the adage says? If so then the creative opportunities that bridge age, gender, culture and every gap imaginable must be allowed to flourish. Right? Wrong! (Or at least in some cases.) It appears that the speed of cyberspace and fast access to multimedia – particularly music and film – has been the culprit of this great debate of copyright rights and wrongs. Not to mention the jurisdictions that govern one’s actions are blurred. How dare the U.S. enforce its laws on an alleged offender living in Brazil? How dare a Brazilian remix American content into Techno Brega and get away with it?
Intent, then, should be a major factor concerning copyright infringement and that’s where Fair Use comes into play. What is clear from the videos is that fair use is simply a legal defense. According to law professor Peter Jaszi of American University, fair use prohibits private censorship. But can it always solve the question of whether one’s copyright has been infringed upon? Enter Creative Commons, a great start to bridge the gap of all works not restricted or in the public domain. In a real sense, Creative Commons clarifies -- artist to artist-- what can be used and how. In this way, the culture of text and media sharing – the literary and artistic tradition my professor spoke of, the read-write culture that Larry Lessig speaks of in his Ted Talk can revive and flourish.
My Comment:
I agree. Copy right laws seem very foggy. Like I put in my blog about the commercials, there are some things that seem so similar, but law says no rights were invaded; Then like the Obama picture, I wouldn't think you could copyright someone's picture, anyone can take a picture and make it look the same. I can say I don't get it. As a teacher, I know I cannot copy worksheets except for what is allowed in the copy right permissions at the front of the book. I know I can't show a movie over closed circuit, but I can show it to my class alone. It's all very confusing. Now as I am learning more about it, I am confused more!
If only “Good Copy Bad Copy” had a cleaner version. While I clearly understand the definition of copyright, the areas of interpretation are very murky according to the videos. As an undergraduate student my English professor gave a lecture on oral and written literary traditions. It was based on the premise that works have a tradition of recycling themselves. One storylines inspires another and then another. How many times have we read or watched boy meets girl, boy loses girl and then gets girl back (or so the story goes.) Of course, this was nearly two decades ago.
There is nothing new under the sun. Isn’t that what the adage says? If so then the creative opportunities that bridge age, gender, culture and every gap imaginable must be allowed to flourish. Right? Wrong! (Or at least in some cases.) It appears that the speed of cyberspace and fast access to multimedia – particularly music and film – has been the culprit of this great debate of copyright rights and wrongs. Not to mention the jurisdictions that govern one’s actions are blurred. How dare the U.S. enforce its laws on an alleged offender living in Brazil? How dare a Brazilian remix American content into Techno Brega and get away with it?
Intent, then, should be a major factor concerning copyright infringement and that’s where Fair Use comes into play. What is clear from the videos is that fair use is simply a legal defense. According to law professor Peter Jaszi of American University, fair use prohibits private censorship. But can it always solve the question of whether one’s copyright has been infringed upon? Enter Creative Commons, a great start to bridge the gap of all works not restricted or in the public domain. In a real sense, Creative Commons clarifies -- artist to artist-- what can be used and how. In this way, the culture of text and media sharing – the literary and artistic tradition my professor spoke of, the read-write culture that Larry Lessig speaks of in his Ted Talk can revive and flourish.
My Comment:
I agree. Copy right laws seem very foggy. Like I put in my blog about the commercials, there are some things that seem so similar, but law says no rights were invaded; Then like the Obama picture, I wouldn't think you could copyright someone's picture, anyone can take a picture and make it look the same. I can say I don't get it. As a teacher, I know I cannot copy worksheets except for what is allowed in the copy right permissions at the front of the book. I know I can't show a movie over closed circuit, but I can show it to my class alone. It's all very confusing. Now as I am learning more about it, I am confused more!
Copy Rights and Fair Use
So funny, as this is our assignment and during our road trip today my son and I began having a conversation out of the blue about copy rights. It began because we stopped at a Dairy Queen, (one of our road trip favs), and my son brought up that he like the new commercials for Dairy Queen. He said they are just like the Old Spice commercials that we like so much.
Here are two links to the Dairy Queen Commercial and the Old Spice Commercial.
Dairy Queen
Old Spice
I haven't been able to get much information about who's idea the commercials came from, maybe they are from the same production company. I think that the concept, since it has been put in video form, should be able to be copy righted. I did come across this article, Old Spice Campaign Your Dairy Queen Ad Could Smell Like
With some simply googling technique, I was able to find many people find the ads strikingly similar.
Here are two links to the Dairy Queen Commercial and the Old Spice Commercial.
Dairy Queen
Old Spice
I haven't been able to get much information about who's idea the commercials came from, maybe they are from the same production company. I think that the concept, since it has been put in video form, should be able to be copy righted. I did come across this article, Old Spice Campaign Your Dairy Queen Ad Could Smell Like
With some simply googling technique, I was able to find many people find the ads strikingly similar.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)