An Artistic Filter Bubble: Perpetuating Unoriginal Works

                A dictionary would define “original” as present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest. It may also say that original describes something created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation. This makes me ponder about what music is truly original. Thus, “I hope you don’t mind that I put down in words” what I think about musical originality. Certainly, one would not accuse an artist of plagiarism for using the same shade of purple as Van Gogh used in his work. Yet, musicians are ridiculed for the use of patterns similar to those already created. Of course, no one person can take credit for the creation of those notes. No one “invented” the musical notes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Perhaps a better word would be “discovered.” Notes always existed, but the music made by these notes must be invented. Just like a painting must be put down on canvas, music must be composed. While one cannot be ridiculed for using the same colors as another painter, one can be accused of copying if each individual brushstroke copies another’s work. This should hold true for music, as well. When notes are painted onto the canvas of music, it should not be deemed unacceptable to use some of these same notes. However, copying each and every musical brushstroke would not be original. This made me wonder how many different songs can be created, and if there will be a time when everyone can say “It’s all been done before.” I found this video in which several calculations are presented to determine how much music can be created. One such calculation determined that there are 123,511,210,975,209,861,511,554,928,715,787,036 unique combinations of notes in a musical measure. To put it in perspective, the video draws the audience’s attention to the fact that the universe is only 432,329,886,000,000,000 seconds old. Clearly there will always be new music for the human race to invent. Even if a new, different song was created every second for billions of years, there would still be unused melodies. Yet, it seems as though we simply “record and play, after years of endless rewind.” We stick to certain melodies. Even though, as far as lyrics go, it seems that “words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,” there are still many similarities. The video also mentions that lyrics of many songs are written in “common meter.” Even though words are different from song to song, “after changes upon changes, we are more or less the same” because of stylistic similarities. So, why does the human race remain stagnant under the influence of these melodies and lyrics? Perhaps we have all established our own artistic filter bubbles. With these, we can pick the music we enjoy and draw inspiration from other artists. People have grown very accustomed to listening to music that they enjoy. “Now they’re frightened of leaving it. Everyone’s weaving it: going on strong, all the time.” People seldom branch out to discover one of the 123,511,210,975,209,861,511,554,928,715,787,036 melodies that have not been heard yet. Perhaps they fear people saying “He was a most peculiar man,” or “has he lost his mind?”. Perhaps, as far as musical tastes go, “it’s easier to be somebody else when you hardly even know yourself.” Perhaps people listen to familiar music to “take a sentimental journey.” I myself admit that “I have become comfortably numb” inside my own filter bubble. Whatever the reason for staying inside, it is clear that there is much yet to be invented in the field of music. In order to tap into this potential, one cannot just amalgamate pieces of others’ work in order to “take these broken wings and learn to fly.” We tell ourselves that people who do this realize “I know I’m fakin’ it. I’m not really makin’ it.” However, we do not do enough ourselves to break our own artistic filter bubbles. We end up listening to the same old music, telling ourselves “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do.” “We all want to change the world.” We all want to challenge norms and be different, but this will never happen until we leave our comfort zones, perpetuated by the norms of humanity, and find another one of the billions upon billions of melodies. Thus, regarding music and its originality, it would be wise to follow a simple rule. “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.” One can appreciate, enjoy, and draw inspiration from old melodies and lyrics. Notes and a few words strung together can be used and reused (assuming that credit is given where credit is due), but if we are ever to move forward and make more original works, we must abandon the musical brushstrokes that paint our filter bubbles and look towards the future.

Song Lyrics Used in this Post

I’d Love to Change the World- Ten Years After

Fakin’ It- Simon and Garfunkel

Blackbird- The Beatles

Revolution 1- The Beatles

A Most Peculiar Man- Simon and Garfunkel

The Boxer- Simon and Garfunkel

Comfortably Numb- Pink Floyd

Iron Man- Black Sabbath

Your Song- Elton John

Liar- Hey Ocean

I Me Mine- The Beatles

Across the Universe- The Beatles

Too Little Too Late- Barenaked Ladies

Sentimental Journey- Doris Day

Don’t Stop- Fleetwood Mac

Copyright: A Definition Only Goes so Far

Zachary D. McClintock
Dr. Pfister
COMM 189H
October 21st

Copyright: A Definition Only Goes so Far

      Many discussions, laws, fights, court cases, and general bad feelings have been associated with the term copyright. Different court cases throughout the years have created specific ways that cases of "copyright infringement" are looked at and judged. The definition of copyright straight from Google is as follows, "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same." That definition itself is extremely confusing and hard to interpret. When the definition is broken down into its sub-parts, it becomes a little clearer and easier to understand.

      "The exclusive legal right" means that the author of whatever the copyright is written for is exclusive; private, solely owned by that person, and restricted from everybody else. The next word in that snippet is legal, which adds that the exclusivity of the idea, movie, game, ect. is protected by the law. The word, right, in this definition talks about what has been determined in court as moral, correct, and justifiable. That exclusive legal right is then given to an "originator or assignee." The originator or assignee is the person or entity that created or designed the item to be copyrighted. An example of such a person would be George Lucas and the movie series of Star Wars. That creator is then given the right to "print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material." What that section of the definition is saying is that the author and creator has the right to publish and distribute his or her creation by various means and pathways. The definition also states in its last words that the person given the copyright has the ability to "authorize others to do the same". The definition is giving the author the sole ability to allow others to publish or take the story/music/idea/ect. and do what they want with it.
      Google is great to give a definition of a word, or a phrase, but is completely inept at saying everything and bringing human emotion into the playing field. A huge part of copyright is the definition by which Google relates and that has been broken down here. Even a broken down part by part definition of the term copyright can not fully explain the term. A much more expansive way would be needed to explain fully the term that has caused so much money loss, hate, laws, court cases, and senses of entitlement. Many people copyright an idea or a song and have no idea exactly what the law they just stamped onto their product really does for them. They don't have any kind of idea the extent of what the laws attached to the term copyright entail. Most of the people in that category just want a sense of their product being safe from other people and think it is all encompassing. In other words, nobody reads the fine print until they feel like somebody else has stolen something of theirs.
      Inside that mass of fine print, where is the line where something changes from free speech and an acceptable use of a copyright material to copyright infringement?  The previous question begs another; Who should get to decide whether a specific incident is copyright infringement? How long should the copyright on a given material last? A definition of the term copyright in denotation terms can be very useful, but it can not take away the fact that something as general as copyright has a mass of connotation associated with it. 

October Blog Prompts

A collection of our collective brainstorming:

At what point does a remix become plagiarism?

What would the world of creativity look like without patents and copyright?

Assuming you think there is a problem with copyright law, how would you revise it?

How has the internet challenged norms around copyright?

What constitutes an "original idea"?

Can We Determine Big Data's Price Tag?

Wikipedia defines Big Data as “an all-encompassing term for any collection of data sets so large and complex that it becomes difficult to process using traditional data processing applications.”  In layman’s terms, we could say that it is more information than we sometimes know what to do with.  Still there are several ways to come to terms with how Big Data works and can be used in our society; two of these ways are Informationism and the Rhetorical Model.  These models are opposing approaches to viewing Big Data, and each can be broken down into the following basic premises.

Informationism

• Everything can be reduced to information
• This information speaks for itself
• Computers are best at processing (because they have no emotion)
• This leads to infallible decision making

Rhetorical Model: Information is not everything

• Not everything can be reduced to information (values, desires, culture)
• Information does not speak for itself because it can be manipulated
• Computers are limited in their processing
• All judgments are valuable because they are open to criticism and revision

No matter which system you personally find to be more accurate, both methods acknowledge that while information may or may not be everything, it is a big part of our world today.  But just how big of a part?  By interpreting Big Data, businesses can learn what to sell, how to market their products and in general how to run a successful company.  In spite of the numerous possibilities Big Data provides, though, we hit a couple snags.  The first problem is that this surplus of raw information, this Big Data, is difficult to interpret.  The second major problem is that not only is this information difficult to interpret, it’s difficult to put a price on.  How much can a purchase history of a supermarket be sold for?  Who would pay for information regarding what people “like” most often on Facebook? Exactly what are a company’s “intangible assets” (AKA data and information) worth?  How much is Google really worth?

A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed this second problem concerning a lack of price tag.  In the article Mr. Douglas Laney, an analyst at Gartner Inc., estimated that Kroger, the fifth largest retailer in the world, takes in about $100 million each year just from data sales.  This data, processed by computers, mainly includes trends in purchasing history which are then sold to the vendors that stock the shelves of Kroger supermarkets.  In turn, the vendors who buy this information interpret the data to adapt their products and marketing to the consumer, which is a complicated and complex process in itself.

So can we just say that the Big Data owned by Kroger is worth $100 million?  It’s not quite that easy.  Laura Martin, an analyst with Needham & Co. notes, “Data is worthless if you don’t know how to use it to make money.”  Obviously, Kroger’s data is not worthless.  Vendors are presumably earning much more than the $100 million they are paying for the raw information or else they would not be investing quite so much money into it.  So we have established it’s not worthless.  Great.  Now what is it worth?

Again, the answer is not so simple.  No one knows the exact cost of information because data is not a physical resource like buildings or currency.  How much is a company making based off of the information and data they buy?  There appear to be too many variables to tell.  One must take into account the shelf-life of data as well as its future worth.  Big Data is a perishable commodity; if people’s tastes change, data could be rendered useless.  So with confidence, we can conclude that information may or may not be worth more in the future.  This sounds like it has now become a problem for the financial experts and it has.  Even the Financial Accounting Standards Board has struggled to come up with standards and rules for this information driven economy.  The matter has been brought before the Board twice between 2002 and 2007 and still there is no clear way to discover what price tag to put on Big Data.

This confusing lack of regulation creates a so-called “blind spot” in many companies, especially ones such as Google, Facebook and eBay.  These companies rely heavily on the collection and sale of Big Data.  The three of them have combined assets minus combined debt of close to $125 billion.  But the combined value of the companies’ shares is $660 billion.  This incredibly large difference is the reflection of the stock market’s assigned monetary value to the companies’ algorithms, patents and accumulation of information on their customers and users.  All these are things that do not show up on their data sheets.

So can we determine Big Data’s price tag?  It is my personal opinion that right now we cannot, not with much accuracy.  At least not “we” as in the general public.  Even financial experts seem to be having a difficult time of it; there are just not enough guidelines and statistics for such a volatile market as information.  Maybe a few years down the road.

The Wall Street Journal article referenced earlier in this post elaborates more on the subject of Big Data’s worth.  You can read it for yourself by clicking on the following link:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/whats-all-that-data-worth-1413157156

Consumer/Producer Reversal

                The world is changing. What an obvious statement – of course it’s changing. Different people are walking the earth each day, ground is eroding, climates patterns are shifting, new inventions are being created, and ideas are being refined. The odd thing is that as more things change, more things stay the same. The weather is transitioning from hot to cold. It’s changing, but it’s the same as previous year’s shift from summer to winter.  Inhabitants of the Earth are terrified about Ebola spreading to their nations, just as they were concerned about HIV, AIDS, and H1N1 years ago. Things change yet still remain the same, and it’s an odd concept to realize. Similarly we, the general public, have always been given information that’s been filtered. For a long time, empowered people chose what the general populace would hear about and what kind of filter would be put on the story. Companies, which are typically considered authority in our consumer-driven society, also indirectly chose what we would buy, wear, and listen to. When the “World Wide Web” was introduced, the idea of unfiltered information and choices captivated us. We wanted to remove the middlemen and hear the truth. Although it seemed like the first time humans had pure information, there were still filters from the writers, the sites we viewed, and the links we accessed. Then, social media sites and search engines began using programming to filter what we read based on our history and background of our clicks.

While both of those types of online filters still affect us, filters are also created by other people. Outspoken and persuasive opinions make us reevaluate our personal opinions what we see as a reasonable belief. The people we follow on social media also “click” their way into making our filters. When other internet users click “like”, “retweet”, “favorite”, etc. for certain bands, pictures, blogs, and websites, we tend to gravitate toward the comfortable opinion of majority. The band that can tweet enough clever tweets and post the best videos captures our attention from the amount of fan feedback it receives. We seem to appreciate things more quickly if thousands of other people demonstrate online that they “like” it than from a record company’s television commercial. More artists and companies are beginning to utilize the internet to advertise and spread the word about their band or products because popular opinion directs us to certain links and sites. For example, YouTube displays the popular videos of the moment and Bing displays what searches are trending now.  A reversal has occurred – rather than the previous filter on our information by those with power, internet users are now filtering what we view.  It switched from middle-aged white males to young people who have extra time to search the web. While the “who” in the filtering changes, the filters themselves remain.

                Just like our filters are changing from "experienced" to "inexperienced", artists are changing parallel to filters. In the past, artist needed to have experience and money to do well in the music industry. Without it, they couldn't purchase the equipment necessary for quality recording so they would have to go to a record company or wait to buy the equipment. The artist depended on the record company to provide them with necessary information, ideas, equipment, and publicity so the artist had little say in what he or she could do. Now, the equipment is much less expensive so artists often don't need to rely on other companies - they rely solely on themselves. Without the companies, the artists are more than just a product getting exploited - they are the producers.

               America is clearly a consumer-driven society. The consumers enhance the economy and its growth, and the authority is naturally given to the producers. Clothing companies choose what styles we will be purchasing and wearing for the next season, advertising companies tell us we need more stuff because what we have isn’t enough, film companies demonstrate to us what behaviors and lifestyles are acceptable, and we listen and accept what the government tells us. They cater to us, but for the most part we simply follow their lead. We rely on them to tell us the truth - to give us unfiltered information. We don’t question the need for 3 athletic shoes (an all-purpose pair, a pair for running, and a pair for style) because clothing and advertising companies enforce the necessity. We, as the general populace, have always been sheeple (people that follow the lead, like sheep follow a shepherd), but that may be changing in some ways. Looking at the music industry, there are many amateur artists able to create music that is nearly professional quality. These artists are able to avoid the music-producing companies of the past and their opinions on what good music sounds like. Rather than recording companies deciding which bands might make it, WE choose. We choose, using YouTube and social media, by simply watching what they’ve done and clicking “like” to spread our opinions.  WE are producing the music and then consuming it by listening and determining whether we like it or not. Our easily categorized "consumer" and "producer" society seems to be transforming itself into a world where classifying each is nearly impossible.
 

Source: PressPausePlay

http://www.presspauseplay.com/

Influence of Culture on Definition of Beauty

My brother and I have always had significantly lighter skin than many in the specific region of India that our family is from. While living in America, our skin tone seemed to not matter as much, in India, the melanin levels in our skin seemed to be a direct cause of not-so-sneaky mocking smiles and awkwardly extensive stares. Ever since I can remember, my grandmother reminded me that light skin was beautiful. However it is not just my grandmother that maintains this view in her mind, but rather the culture of India as a whole. Starting from acidic face whitening creams called ‘Fair and Lovely’ ranging to the constant photo-shopping of popular social figures to seem lighter skinned, the perception that “white” is beautiful is one that has deeply been rooted within Indian culture.

            It can be said that beauty is often a reflection of societal values. In many third world countries including India, lighter skin seems to be indicative of class. Starting from the British control of India, people of lighter skin were the ones of higher power and class. Lower class workers had dominantly darker skin, perhaps from working outside or farming under the sun. Lighter skin indicated that one spent more time inside than out and were given more preference by British officers. In a society where poverty is ubiquitous, the physical indication of higher financial status is one to be thrived for. Pressure to become “pale” has led India’s whitening cream market to increase from about $400 million to about $650 million in just four years. Apart from color, this is also why girls with smaller, more slender figures are looked down upon in most Indian societies. Having a more curvy body is indicative of being wealthy enough to afford food. This is a stark contrast from Western culture, where thinness is a characteristic that is held on a pedestal and tanning salons have become as common as fast food restaurants. 

            While this cultural difference of beauty still exists, the continual globalization has redefined beauty in many Eastern cultures, especially for younger generations. My grandmother’s perception of beauty is one that may live on in the older generations, but it is easy to see that things are changing. In fact, a new movement called ‘Dark is Beautiful’ has been taking on India’s obsession with lighter skin. Actress Nandita Das has become the face of the campaign, speaking about how she has received emails from women talking about the prejudices they face from being darker skinned. Some women have even come to the brink of committing suicide. She hopes to change the media in a way that looks at “beauty beyond color”. In a world where media holds so much influence upon culture, these are the first steps in creating a more equal world for people of all color. 

Ted Cruz, Dissoi Logoi, and Politics.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/10/epic-speech-ted-cruz-vs-49-senate-democrats-who-voted-to-repeal-the-first-amendment/

Ted Cruz deserves a standing ovation for protecting our right to freedom of speech.  Without him, the Senate Democrats would have gutted the first amendment; they would have allowed the government to place “reasonable” limits on free speech.  I’m glad he had the common sense to realize “reasonable” is a slippery slope. What would stop Congress from banning books, movies, or even different political groups from speaking?  This resolution, S.J. Res. 19, is clearly misinformed or malicious, and I can’t believe that the Senate Democrats want to do this.  To show you just how bad this resolution is, I’ll copy what it does, from here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text .

  ``Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

    ``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

    ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.''.

Wait a minute, that sounds nothing like the malicious, free-speech hating resolution that the article was talking about.  Shockingly enough, the article from the Tea Party News Network had a conservative slant.  They conflated money with the idea of free speech, and from them on, ran with the idea that the Democrats were trying to limit all forms of free speech such as books or movies.  Regardless of your views on whether or not money equals free speech, I believe we can all agree that the resolution does not have any provisions for banning books, movies, or anything else in the future besides political expenditures. This article is just one example of a growing problem in our nation.

The problem in this day and age is that people get their news media from a few websites and television shows that are slanted heavily in favor of one side or the other. If one only gets their media from one side, then they only see one side of the picture, and are sometimes even mislead, like with the article I showed.  Someone reading only that article (such as my Republican father) would believe that the Democrats were trying to ban all forms of free speech, even though that can be objectively disproven by just reading the text of the resolution.  That would be okay, if people were exposed to more points of views, but in the internet age, they aren’t.   For example, my dad only reads things from Fox News, The Conservative Tribune, The Blaze (Glenn Beck), The Tea Party News Network, and other conservative websites and blogs.  Because people like this never see the contrasting arguments or experience dissoi logoi, they believe that they are correct, and that the other side and their politicians are ignorant, malicious, or both. This only serves to further polarize each side as their opinions become more and more like the articles that they are reading, because they never see the articles rebutted.  They also tend  to see the other side as either ignorant or malicious, making it so that they can never see the other side’s point of view.

This polarization is a serious issue and a huge flaw that is hurting our democracy.  It’s creating a situation where these “news” websites only attack the other side in a horribly biased way.  They take minor gaffes, such as the Latte Salute, and blow them up to a ridiculous conclusion, i.e. “Obama doesn't respect the military”.  Beyond the little things, this polarization is deeply affecting Congress and creating the “do-nothing-Congress”.  Instead of focusing on the merits of the bill, the news networks and parties (who are influenced by the news networks) focus on which side the bill came from.  From there on, they decide to vote it down based solely on whether it’s a Republican or Democratic bill.

A recent example of this comes from the Heritage Action Foundation, a conservative policy advocacy group. A huge source of their strength comes from conservatives who are very strong in their beliefs (presumably stronger in their beliefs because of their one-sided media) and willing to call their congressmen and have their friends call their congressman. Heritage Action tells congressmen how they want them to vote on bills, and then rates the congressmen  based on how often they went with Heritage Action; this helps demonstrate if a congressman is a bonafide Republican or just a “Republican In Name Only”.  Because Heritage Action ended up being very big, their “vote” ends up being a very influential factor that controls a lot of Republican votes.  During the debt ceiling debate, they issued a “No” vote to all of the Republicans, despite having not seen the text of the bill or even knowing any details.  They just decided that anything coming from the Democrats couldn't be good enough and decided to kill it. This is a great example of polarization blocking any sort of productive political activity.  When groups like this, with support from people fed on only one-sided articles act in this way, it further polarizes the nation.

Simply enough, articles are getting more and more slanted.  This is creating a situation where people are becoming more and more convicted in their beliefs, which creates situations where there is no common ground, because the opposing side appears to be clearly wrong according to all of the articles that an individual is reading. This lack of dissoi logoi creates polarization which is one of the huge reasons why there is a do-nothing congress, and groups like Heritage Action can succeed at killing all productivity.