1) Wikert, Joe. “A Call For A Unified E-Book Market.” Publishers Weekly 259.6 (2012): 18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

This article discusses the issues that arise from the use of DRM in the e-book market.  It focuses on how many issues are a direct result of publishing companies only offering their content on a dedicated e-book reader how this ties into a publisher’s insistence on the use ofDRM.

2)Knopf, Dominik, and Christoph Sorge. “Model‐Oriented Analysis Of User – Right Holder Relations And Possible Impacts Of DRM.” Information Services & Use 23.4 (2003): 235-239. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

This article considers possible futures of DRM, in particular it looks at one possible model, what the call the “tilting bottle model”.  Ultimately they are arguing for a new type of DRM, they describe why current DRM is ineffective and needs to be changed.

3) Mavrogeanes, Rich. “DRM Is Dead.” Eventdv 24.10 (2011): 67. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

This article talks about how DRM is not doing what is suppose to.  The author talks about how there are more important ways to deal with illegal distribution of digital material and how DRM is at best just being annoying to everyone.

Topic:For my research project I decided to research the current state/use of Digital Rights Management (DRM) and whether it is actually helping anyone or just being a burden on the users. 

Purpose: I hope to show that there are possible alternatives to current the DRM systems, and that it may be in the best interest of everyone that a more modern view of digital media be adopted.

Writer: This is a topic I have been bothered by for a long time.  Being a student I feel more and more that we are forced to use restrictive DRM

Audience: The audience for this is really anyone who is not really aware of the issues existing with DRM.  I think that most people are aware of it existing in some form, but don’t tend to consider the consequences it could potentially have on the future of the digital sphere.

Working Claim:Current DRM is outdated, does not really prevent piracy, is more annoying to the legitimate users than those who would circumvent it, and hurts everybody’s conceptualization of digital mediums.

Three supporting arguments: 

1. As stated above, DRM fails at what it is intended to do, i.e. it cannot actually prevent “illegal” redistribution of digital content.

2. If better alternatives were to be implemented, such as developing more convenient ways to “legally” distribute digital content, DRM could be completely forgotten without any negative consequences.

3. DRM-free content/software creates a more open and trusting community.  The legit users don’t feel punished for others actions.

Three counter arguments:

1. Without DRM piracy will increase and “legitimate” sales will go down.

2. It may be expensive to implement alternatives to DRM

3. It has been around this long…

Type of evidence: I will try to find examples of DRM-free methods that have worked in the past as well as scholarly articles within the information security realm that deal with the issues with DRM.

Three possible research questions:

1. How much does DRM actually do?  Is it really preventing any unwanted activity?

2. If DRM is so important how is it that DRM-free software can be successful?

3. Why is it that so many people cling to DRM instead of looking for better alternatives?

For my critical analysis paper, I decided to write about science fiction. Science ficition is inherently a remixing of current (and past) ideas. Generally technologically or political fueled, science fiction often explores interesting concepts that have very real significance.  Through creating impossible, or at least improbable, settings fiction allows us to explore concepts in a safe environment, especially with issues that may be considered “controversial”.

Science fiction being… the rather broad and varied thing it is, I decided to focus on one particular sub-genre of science fiction that is, without a doubt, a remix through and through: steampunk.  Steampunk is essentially an envisioning(remixing) of a past that did not happen.  Most often, it takes the setting of a Victorian England where steam powered technology has allowed for marvellous advancements many decades before similar advancements in our timeline, or even technology that we have yet to develop.

Steampunk is not only a perfect example of the art of remixing, but also of how a remix can create something that could never have existed otherwise.  Through such remixing we are able to question anything and everything in an attempt to find news ways in which to remix the world we live in.

For my critical analysis paper, I am planning on analysing and critiquing the steampunk genre as a remix of history, invention, society, and politics.

Interesting Andrews Sisters remix…

jacobsonmitch1301remixed:

“Clearly, the ballet ‘Rosas danst Rosas’ was one of many references for my video ‘Countdown.’ It was one of the inspirations used to bring the feel and look of the song to life.”  Artists use other works as inspiration to prove and create their own work, without harming the original work.  Once a work has inspired new work, the new work should be viewed as something independent.

Thought I’d share the song Beyonce “remixed”

“I’d like to watch some movies about people of color (ahem, aliens), from the perspective of that group, without injecting a random white (erm, human) character to explain everything to me.”

“Avatar imaginatively revisits the crime scene of white America’s foundational act of genocide, in which entire native tribes and civilizations were wiped out by European immigrants to the American continent.”

“These are movies about white guilt. Our main white characters realize that they are complicit in a system which is destroying aliens, AKA people of color - their cultures, their habitats, and their populations.”

“It’s a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.”

“Watching the movie, there is really no mistake that these are alien versions of stereotypical native peoples that we’ve seen in Hollywood movies for decades.”

Talk about your process writing this portion of the draft. What came easily for you?

I found this assignment to be quite enjoyable.  I liked the material that was to be summarised and found the ideas presented in it easy to write on. 

What were the major struggles of this draft? Be specific.

 The main thing I struggled with was trying to be objective.  The nature of the material to be summarised was very opinionated in the first place.  Making sure that the summary reflected what was being said and not how I interpreted it was somewhat difficult.
 

Let’s talk about time management. How did you balance the researching and writing of this partial draft? In what ways could you improve?

 I wrote about 90% of the paper in one sitting.  I essentially read through the material I was trying to summarise once before I started writing, and then would occasionally glance back at it if there was something I wasn’t sure about.  I think I would benefit from a more structured approach.  Possibly some kind of iterative cycle stretched over a few days.

Now, a to-do list: write at least five (5) things you need to do before you hand in your summary portfolio to Chrissy on Monday, February 13th. Be specific. Do not write “finish the paper.”

1. Write an actual conclusion.
2. Clarify the main points of the summary
3. Fix a few grammatical errors
4. Improve some of the wording that was confusing or just felt odd
5. Make sure I am actually summarising the original material.  Not my interpretation of it.

As is touched on in the section “You Can’t Steal a Gift”: when we pay for art we are essentially paying for the opportunity to experience the art.  The actual experience we have due to the art is something that can’t really have a monetary value associated with it.  This is evident in how personal and subjective art inherently is.  Throughout our lives we are likely to encounter numerous examples of art that will have an immense impact on us. So when someone is creating something “new”, how can we justly say what was his/her own idea and what was taken from an art piece that has had a large impact on his/her life?  It is fairly easy when something is taken verbatim.  But what about something that is just very similar conceptually?

It is obvious that we have always been sampling and remixing the work of those who have come before us.  So what exactly has allowed our idea of copyright to become so restricting in the last several decades?

What role does the monetization of art play in our “fear” of weakening copyright laws?  I imagine we have been moving towards our current view of art (especially with music, painting, and film) ever since someone realized they could place a monetary value on a piece of art.  More and more art has become intertwined with its associated value.  How does the monetary value of a piece of art affect our perception of it?