The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell or distribute the matter and form of something is the best way to define the term copyright. Public domain in the other hand is very self explanatory, it is the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole. Copyright does not protect matters such as an idea or a system or process but a manuscript, a recording, painting or blueprint or sculpture.
Generally when speaking of public domain no permission is needed to copy or use public domain works. The reason for this is because either they are ineligible for copyright protection or its an expired copyright. Many students as well as faculty staff rely on upon this type of information.
Jana Quinn states in her article “Who owns creative content” that she thinks the power balance is what makes negotiating publishing rights , distribution rights and other details of creative content such a struggle. I totally agree with her and my reason for saying that is because of the many new artists in the industries today have zero money and only his/her own art. Thats when a skillful executive paying as little as possible while maintaining as much control over the property as possible come in. She clearly says that without the creators invention and arrangements of words and images as well as sounds , the art would not exist. I personally believe that the copyrights are as up to date as they can get for the time being. It is protecting the authors and publishers as well as producers and other artists. As opposed to how the copyright laws where back then they have come a far way.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Propaganda
Lets face it, the days of Saturday morning cartoons are honestly long gone. Today these kids can watch any cartoon show as well as other children’s programming on a variety of channels anytime they turn on their TV. On March 5th of last year, Scott Morefield wrote an article which he titled “ How services like Netflix (in moderation) could help parents break the junk food propaganda stranglehold.” Scott states that these parents would do well in his opinion if they were able to keep a close eye on not only what and how much their kids are watching, but even better the content of the commercials given during these episodes. The kids today are exposed to all types of commercials. We see it all the time; junk food and beverage companies are spending a lot of money poisoning us with their advertisements.
But now several major food manufacturers including McDonalds, has agreed to promote healthier choices with half of their child directed advertising. It’s incredible the exposure to fast food in TV ads that were are seeing. Morefield shared some very interesting information in his article... “McDonalds alone spent $898.1 million on advertising in 2009. That year, the average 2-5 year-old child saw 309 McDonalds ads, almost 3 per day.” Scott mentions that as a result , 40 percent of the parents said their children ask them to go to McDonalds. The interesting question here is did these parents give in?
I think propaganda should be illegal in a way because it ultimately comes down to all lies. If one can get in trouble for lying why can’t those who influence others while knowing they will be harmed? It just does not make any sense to me. Morefield’s primary focus was to write an article which discussed how to raise healthy kids despite a system and status quoa that makes it as difficult as possible. He named a few alternatives towards the bottom of his article which I thought were quite interesting and accurate. He says it’s the parent’s responsibility to become educated on the issues of fast food and decide what exactly their children consume.
Far too many parents , I see give in to their kids to avoid tantrums and to make them happy but in the long run it doesn’t benefit anyone. I know it’s extremely convenient when a family is out and about to just drive up to McDonalds and order off of the menu. The more these kids watch the McDonald’s ads the more they will want it and eventually parents will give in. What should be done is opt for DVDs or streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix where parents can keep better track of what their kids watch.
But now several major food manufacturers including McDonalds, has agreed to promote healthier choices with half of their child directed advertising. It’s incredible the exposure to fast food in TV ads that were are seeing. Morefield shared some very interesting information in his article... “McDonalds alone spent $898.1 million on advertising in 2009. That year, the average 2-5 year-old child saw 309 McDonalds ads, almost 3 per day.” Scott mentions that as a result , 40 percent of the parents said their children ask them to go to McDonalds. The interesting question here is did these parents give in?
I think propaganda should be illegal in a way because it ultimately comes down to all lies. If one can get in trouble for lying why can’t those who influence others while knowing they will be harmed? It just does not make any sense to me. Morefield’s primary focus was to write an article which discussed how to raise healthy kids despite a system and status quoa that makes it as difficult as possible. He named a few alternatives towards the bottom of his article which I thought were quite interesting and accurate. He says it’s the parent’s responsibility to become educated on the issues of fast food and decide what exactly their children consume.
Far too many parents , I see give in to their kids to avoid tantrums and to make them happy but in the long run it doesn’t benefit anyone. I know it’s extremely convenient when a family is out and about to just drive up to McDonalds and order off of the menu. The more these kids watch the McDonald’s ads the more they will want it and eventually parents will give in. What should be done is opt for DVDs or streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix where parents can keep better track of what their kids watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)