It's no secret that I hate my job.  In fact, I've disliked most jobs I've had because of crummy co-workers and awful bosses.  (I've worked on golf cart maintenence, bussed tables, waited tables, and worked at a gym.....all sucked).  But one thing that I've always been wary of has been being online friends with co-workers.

This article from NY Times discusses the pros and cons of accepting friend requests from co-workers and bosses on networks like Facebook and Myspace.  I highly suggest checking this article out; it's got some awesome tips and guidelines for how to handle online relationships with co-workers.

 

I found Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture to be a very interesting book to read.  My real fascination came from the fact that I'm a musician, and am always interested in reading about copyright laws and the history behind them. 

I've found that the laws concerning copyrights are very complicated at times and difficult to get a grasp on, and sometimes it becomes tough to form a solid opinion as to exactly how you feel about certain aspects of the law.

I liked Lessig's section on Music on page 55, as well as his suggestion for creator compensation on page 106.  A lot of my friends download music for free, in fact my one buddy JD regularly tells me about how he "hasn't bought a CD in years" because he downloads entire discographies.  To some, this may seem like a smart move, and a great way to save money.  But let me explain how this looks from the opposing side.

As a musician who is trying to promote myself independently, the whole process rests on my shoulders.  No management team, no record label, no PR group, nothing; just me and the help and support of my family.  Let's do a little math:

- First, we have supplies and tools to do my job (write and perform music.)  Guitars, amplifiers, microphones, mic stands, PA system, cables, extension cords, guitar strings, picks, guitar straps, effects pedals, slides, pickups, and  capos. 

- Now let's add in the instructional DVDs and lessons that I've learned from of over the years.

- I began playing music at the age of 12, so factor in 10 years worth of time spent working on my music (I'm primarily self-taught.)

- Add in the hours of practice each week, as well as time spent working on new material, shaping and crafting songs, and generally working to improve.

- I released an album in October 2008, (yes, a shameless plug, but I have to promote myself, remember??)  I had to pay for the time spent in the studio to record, as well as pay for the album to be printed and sealed, and then shipped out to me.

- Lastly, let's factor in the money spent on gas when I drive around to perform and promote my music.

Now imagine I wake up one day and find my album is up on Limewire, and everyone's downloading it for free because they don't want to pay for it. 

I only tell you this to remind you that a copyright protection, in this case, is there for a reason.  I think a lot of people see copyright protection as almost an inconvenience.  My friend JD doesn't get why you would pay for a CD when you can just dowload it for free?  CDs may be "expensive" in some people's eyes, but you have to remember that you're not paying for the plastic case, or the CD itself, or the lyric book.  You're paying for the time, energy, and money spent by the musicians/songwriters who have dedicated their lives to creating music (or any art form, for that matter) for people's entertainment.  Sure, I want to share my music with the world, but honestly, I don't want to starve in the process.

Now let's look at Lessig's point about building off of previous creations.  He gives the impression throughout the book that if we begin to limit what people are allowed to "add on to" or "springboard" off of, that our free culture will suffer.  I disagree.  Again, let me relate this back to music.

I'm a big John Butler Trio fan.  Now if I ripoff this song, Pickapart, and make some changes, but claim I've only built on what was already there, there's no way you're going to convince me that that's ok.  Instead, I feel that the drive to avoid copyright infringement has pushed me to study JBT's style, mesh it with my other influences, and create something unique to myself.  I have a few songs that are in the same style as JBT, but swiping specific melodies and progressions would be piracy in every sense of the word.  Lessig's assertion that the concept of "property" is detrimental to growth in a free culture is a bit absurd, but again, I may feel this way because of my background in music.  As my classmate Chris said in his post, " His theme is that if this occurs, 'Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less.  Ours was a free culture.  It is becoming less so."  (p. 30)'"  There is plenty to build upon without ripping others off. 

Let me ask you this; if I came to you and said, "Hey a friend of mine approached me and said he wanted to use the melodies and vocal patterns from my song Jet Plane for a documentary he's filming.  He doesn't want to use my song, he just wants to create a song a lot like it and add in some piano parts, maybe a violin, and use a female lead singer."  Would you say that's ok?  Sure, he's adding on to what I did, but is the song not, at its core, still my creation? 

Copyright protection is something I feel passionately about, and this book really made me get really passionate really quick!

     Lawrence Lessig presents an interesting study and analysis of creativity, culture, copyrights, property and intellectual property in his text Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity.

     Lessig offers many arguments against giving authors complete control over copyrights and intellectual property.  At first, it seems like he is against giving authors any publishing control over their work.  But he starts the text explicitly stating, "We live in a world that celebrates 'property'.  I am one of those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call 'intellectual property'."  (p. 28) In addition, further analysis of his text reveals he is actually unveiling both sides of the perspective, author's and creator's as well as the public's.  Not only is he describing both perspectives, but also he is drawing logical conclusions about what is going to happen in our culture due to the changing technology, the copyright laws, and the affects these have on the public in general.

     Lessig begins describing one of the central issues of intellectual property by using Disney as an example.  In 1928, Buster Keaton created a silent movie called Steamboat Bill, Jr.  Before the release of this movie, Disney had been experimenting with music and animation in its short cartoons.  Upon the release of Keaton's movie, Disney released a short animated feature called Steamboat Willie, starring an unknown Mickey Mouse.

     The point in using this example is that in 1928, intellectual property was not a big issue as it is today.  If it were, Buster Keaton could have sued Disney for this creation.  The idea is that Disney used creative elements exclusive to Buster Keaton's creation Steamboat Bill, Jr, that Keaton as author had control over.  If intellectual property was an issue during the period, the creativity that spawned such works as Cinderella, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan may not have occurred.  His theme is that if this occurs, "Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less.  Ours was a free culture.  It is becoming less so."  (p. 30)

     I believe what he is saying is that he fears that our culture and creativity will suffer if people are not allowed to add on and adapt to other people's creations.  He doesn't believe it is fair for society as a whole.  I am not sure I entirely agree with his point.  I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes, so to speak, but I am going to go with a much more conservative viewpoint than I believe others who read this book will take.

     I believe in the right of every American to make as much money as they want to, without interference from the government.  Some may say, "Well, how much money is enough?"  Some may call this a "sleazy, capitalist" viewpoint.  "Enough" money is a subjective point of view.  There is no rational, scientific viewpoint for "enough" money.  I refuse to make that judgment on anyone.  Further, if I were in Mr. Lucas shoes, I cannot say that I wouldn't want to make as much money off of Star Wars as I could too, so how can I judge him?  Let me give an example, if I am George Lucas, and I create a highly profitable intellectual property called Star Wars, I have every right to make as much money as I want to off this creation.  (On another note, I think Lucas is a lousy filmmaker and writer; he had only one or two good ideas for films, the rest were flops.  I believe he is just an excellent businessman and marketer, and at most an average filmmaker.)  I recently saw that George Lucas is making an animated television series called Star Wars: Clone Wars.  Let's say for argument's sake, using an analogous situation that Lessig refers to above with Disney and Steamboat Willie, that another creator five years ago (does not even have to necessarily be Disney) wishes to create an animated series using some creative elements from the Star Wars franchise.  Mr. Lucas says no, or charges an enormous amount for permission to use these elements.  Maybe the creators of the animated series did not even ask Mr. Lucas and he sued them for damages.  Using the arguments that Lessig puts forth, these "animated creators" are just adding to free culture, adding to our culture's creativity.  But how do we, as the public, or the animated creators, know that Mr. Lucas did not plan on creating his own animated series based on Star Wars?  Should not he have a right to do so if he wishes?  He eventually did create a series.

     Lessig also uses an example of how a documentarian friend of his created a scene where a television was playing four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  He goes on to tell us that Fox (who owned the rights) refused to allow him to use the footage without paying an exorbitant fee.  While I believe and feel that Fox is essentially not being fair, they have every right to make as much money as they want off the creation they own.

     This may lead some readers to go back to the argument that creativity and culture suffers.  I don't entirely agree.  If people are not allowed to use other people's creations, it doesn't necessarily follow that NOTHING creative will be added to our culture.  Isn't it possible that instead of people relying on other people's creations to make art that they create something new and ingenious?  Further, copyright and intellectual property laws aren't refusing creators from adapting other people's creations to make something new.  It is only forcing creators to get permission.  While there are some creators who will say no for no logical reason, or some creators will charge fees that make it impossible for us to adapt their copyrights and intellectual property for our use, I believe that the majority of authors will be reasonable and either give permission or only charge a fair, market price.

     Lessig is right though; Congress must find a balance between the public's fair use, and the author's right to make money off his creation.  If authors have no financial incentive for creation of art or addition to culture, then free culture definitely suffers.  Overall, I think some of Lessig points seem hyperbolic, especially since some examples he uses seem dated.  For instance, the Napster example he uses I believe is settled.  The technology cannot be outlawed.  Pirating movies and DVDs is a crime.  Congress established this a few years ago and I agree with their decision.  I believe that he chooses examples and scenarios that paint a "black and white" picture of the situation.  For example, choosing the situation where his friend the documentarian had issues with Fox for using four seconds of an episode of The Simpsons.  Are analogous situations prevalent amongst authors and publishers of copyright and intellectual property?  He doesn't really prove that to me, and I am not sure he could convince me even if he tried harder.

Others may have differing viewpoints; I look forward to hearing from them here or in class.

A few weeks ago we read Lupton’s Thinking with Type.  Which is a fascinating book about how to use different fonts.  We used the theories that were discussed in Lupton to help us design our own  typeface.   Only a few days after I had finished the rough draft of my font I came a crossed an article on Yahoo that gave me a little more insight into typography.  (I’m am not sure if “rough draft” is the right phrase to use in this situation but I think that my meaning is clear.) 

The article was titled “Typeface Inspired by Comic Books Has Become a Font of Ill Will” by Emily Steel.  It discusses the controversy over the continued use of Vincent Connare’s font Comic Sans.  The font originated fifteen years ago as a software project at Microsoft.  Since then it has spread to “grade-school fliers, holiday newsletters, Disney ads, Beanie Baby tags, business emails, street signs, Bibles, porn sites, gravestones and hospital posters about bowel cancer”.

Unbeknownst to me the font has caused quite a commotion with graphic designers and other aesthetes.  I saw the font as simply cute and childlike fine for a five year olds’ birthday invitations but inappropriate for much else. However, it has caused so much controversy that many want it banned. There are numerous websites devoted to just that.  At such sites, you can even purchase anti Comic Sans apparel, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc. 

The Ban Comic Sans movement’s manifesto explains that they “believe in the sanctity of typography and that the traditions and established standards of this craft should be upheld throughout all time... Type is a voice; it’s very qualities and characteristics communicate to readers a meaning beyond mere syntax.

In fact after reading their position I was a little upset that I had attempted to create my own font because I might be considered one of the “uneducated [who now] have opportunities to desecrate this art form; therefore, destroying the historical integrity of typography”.  I am sure that they were not referring to students completing assignments however, their language was a little intimidating. 

However the site make several good points many of which were discussed in Lupton.  One was that like the “tone of a spoken voice, the characteristics of a typeface convey meaning.  The design of the typeface is, in itself, its voice. Often this voice speaks louder than the text itself”.  Therefore using Comic Sans for much of anything outside of a comic book is “analogous to showing up for a black tie event in a clown costume”.

 

When asked about the attention given to the font Mr. Connare said.  "If you love it, you don't know much about typography….if you hate it, you really don't know much about typography, either, and you should get another hobby."