Literacy Privilege: How I Learned to Check Mine Instead of Making Fun of People’s Grammar on the Internet

You know the overused but very insightful cliché “never judge a book by its cover”? In the blog post “Literacy Privilege: How I Learned to Check Mine Instead of Making Fun of People’s Grammar on the Internet,” this is put to the test. While they say that good grammar is a sign of intelligence, this blogger clearly lays out why one should not judge another based on his or her grammar and she takes it a step further in saying that correcting other people’s grammar makes you nothing but condescending, elitist, and annoying.

This blogger used to consider herself a grammar snob. She would, as she bluntly put it, “rail and rip” people apart for using improper grammar. Four years ago, she was hired in a program that helps disadvantaged adults acquire fundamental literacy skills. She claims that this experience was not only eye opening, but also mind-opening. In this job, she learned that being nit-picky about the language skills of perfect strangers is “kind of an asshole move.”

She goes on to say when you hear someone using improper or even poor grammar, specifically on the Internet, consider these things. The writer may be dyslexic. He may have spent his childhood being shamed or belittled by his teachers and peers because his brain works differently from theirs. He might have come from an abusive home, where keeping his body and spirit together, not focusing on English studies, came first. She goes on to name more possible situations for this man’s poor grammar. She also looks at this from the other side. What if this man, with his poor grammar, likes to express his obnoxious opinions in childish ways and picks fights with anyone who disagrees. This scenario makes it far more tempting to criticize this man for his improper diction. However, there are problems with this approach as well.

Judgments about what is considered “right”, “good”, and “correct” in writing and grammar always – ALWAYS (as the blogger strongly emphasizes) – align with characteristics of the dialects spoken by privileged, mostly wealthy, mostly white people. We make judgments based on learned biases. An emotional attachment to a specific way of doing things can be responsible as well.

The issue of literacy is by no means trivial, either. The latest statistics from the International Adult Literacy Survey show that “nearly half of all North American adults cannot cope with complex written material of the sort that the other half of us take completely for granted.” This, according to the blogger, should be considered a national crisis.

Back to the one of the main points of not judging a book by its cover, we need to become more committed to finding better ways to engage with people whose opinions, experiences, and means of expressions are different from ours.

Correcting other people’s grammar - Do you agree? Do you believe that one’s grammar should be overlooked while looking for deeper meanings in what he or she is trying to communicate? Should we cease trying to correct other’s grammar as studies have shown that is does not truly improve grammar? Or is proper grammar and good diction a sign of intelligence that has to be considered when listening to one’s argument?

Crime or Creative Process?

The line between plagiarism and tribute work continues to be nearly indiscernible – as is shown by a series of posters created by various graphical designers and arranged for viewing ease by Bob Caruthers, a retired design professor. He presents the posters alongside the older posters that certainly provided their graphical inspiration. What is most striking is how utterly similar the pairs are – the content of a poster may have been changed, say, from a 1960’s movie to a concert advertisement, but the main content is, in most cases, nearly untouched. The obvious similarities leave us wondering, “Is this tribute work, or merely lazy graphical design?”

The authors of the post believe that no individual person is entitled to solely explore an idea, but rather that ideas, once formulated, should be free for anyone to use. In the age of the internet, when access to information is unprecedentedly easy to obtain, they argue, artists should be reveling in the availability of new mediums through which to express themselves, and not hung up on getting credit for their work. If this were the case, then artists would not have the right to claim an idea as their own – and as far as copyright goes, this is technically the case. It is not the idea protected by law, but the creator’s individual expression of what the idea means to them.

A few of the oldest posters shown are unquestionably in public domain, so any recent iterations are safe and legal. The newer posters, though, are often a rehashing of designs that were created just a year or two before. Would these posters be protected, then? Could the modern-day designers make a legitimate claim that their work is more tribute than a copy of another artist’s work?

Should the new posters be considered artistic translations?

Does the line between plagiarism and tribute work actually become more or less clear when the core designs are so clearly identifiable in both the original work and the iteration?

Is it ethical to act in the interest of the “idea” rather than the artists who have created works based on the idea in the past?

To use, or not to use?

    In the comic book styled article, "Bound by law?", we follow Akiko, a fictional documentary film maker as she explores the world of copyright laws, fair use, public domain, and the process of clearing rights to copyrighted material in what she may have filmed. After getting through the "Tales from the Crypt"- esque opening, Akiko is joined by two companions who guide her through what it means to use copyrighted material that may just incidentally appear in her footage, and how she can jump through the legal hurdles, so to say, to determine whether she may leave the work in her piece under fair use, have to contact a copyright owner to clear rights to use footage containing logos, products, theme songs, etc., or if it's safest for her to just remove the content from her footage all together.

    It's quite apparent that Akiko is having a hard time as an artist understanding how the issue of intellectual property and copyrighting won't discourage her from continuing her art; there seems to be no legal way around artistic expression for a documentary film maker- if one is shooting real life as it happens, of course tons of copyrighted material is going to show up in the footage; it's the world we live in. Here is where the idea of fair use comes in.

    I didn't quite understand myself what fair use really was while reading the article, so I searched for it and found the actual legal policy (I can't really paraphrase it, so take a look at this webpage: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). The authors actually define fair use by stating, "[fair use] should mean you don't need permission for incidentally captured fragments [of film]." (pg 14). But, fair use really isn't that simple; there is still the risk of a lawsuit or a demand for royalties from a copyright holder if one decides to claim the fair use policy when using content. If something seems it may go awry if used, the policy actually states that it may be best to just contact the copyright holder and ask permission to use. In the case of Akiko, who does view the laws as obstacles of her art, she seems that she would actually argue the case of fair use for what she will or has already used in her footage. Fair use can't really be defined in most situations- it's just one of those things that will always have a fine line of what it really is. Akiko, if arguing fair use for content, could win a case in court if a lawsuit were filed against her, or she may not; clear, supporting evidence would have to be provided and well represented. 

    Based on my understanding, not just on fair use, the authors of this article through Akiko and her legal companions were asking artists to make themselves familiar with copyright laws, public domain, and fair use, as well as how to use them to their advantage to avoid legal troubles which could, as illustrated, stifle their artistic creativity. The laws are really there to protect, but they can seem to hurt if not properly understood. 

    Fair use, whether incidental or on purpose, I feel is something worth arguing. Let's assess how often we watch comedic parodies on pop culture: it's on VH1, all over YouTube (Kingsley, Shane Dawson, just to name a few YouTube parody comedians in their own right), and just about anywhere you go- they're all examples of fair use! No one is suing them for this (unless they're some kind of tightwad always looking for a way to make that extra buck.)

    Fair use- is it worth arguing? Should one just leave content out to avoid any legal hassle? Are you going to call Abercrombie and Apple every time you photograph someone doing homework in Starbucks and ask if it's ok for their logos to be in your photo? Should I be asking Starbucks for permission to use their name in this post? 

"Piracy" vs. Reinventing: RiP: a remix manifesto

            In response to the frustration and confusion most young people suffer from the rules and regulations of copyright, RiP: a remix manifesto is a movie about fighting and arguing for the freedom to create, reinvent, and build upon without harsh restrictions and threats of persecution. But before I go into their argument further, I’ll define a couple important terms:

            Public Domain: Information and sources available for public use. In other words, their rights have expired or no longer apply. A good rule of thumb is to assume something is in the public domain if published before 1923.

            Creative Commons: It’s almost like a handshake between the owner of the work and the potential user. If the owner puts a Creative Commons license on their work, the public is allowed to use it according to the terms of the specific license.

            It seems that individuals like Greg Gillis, otherwise known as Girl Talk (I’m trying to see the meaning behind it but I have yet to succeed) and Brett Gaylor are attempting to convince the public that today’s copyright takes away our generation’s rights. They believe the rules are oppressive, leading to ridiculous consequences like the fines the girl in the video had to pay back (assuming the 22,000 she had to pay back was due to her downloading music). The quote regarding the idea that if “piracy” is criminal, then “we have a whole generation of criminals” really stood out to me, because in the end, it speaks the truth. In accordance to the video, I do believe it is better to share rather than restrict ideas. Downloading various materials “illegally” is so common nowadays that I think the rules need to adapt to our generation. However, I am not saying no rights should be given to owners of material. I am in favor of Creative Commons Licenses, and I believe people should embrace them more often as a middle ground between copyright and public domain.

            Do you think the regulations on copyright should be less restrictive and more open to public use? What is your take on the idea of Creative Commons? Are the consequences for “piracy” too harsh? What does a world a few years in the future look like under copyright?

Youtube Copyright School

“Youtube Copyright School” is a colorful cartoon from the popular Youtube series “Happy Tree Friends” created by MondoMedia. Initially known for being a quite graphically violent parody of children’s cartoons, this is a G-rated PSA to inform the reader of Copyright infringement, Fair Use, and general guidelines to posting Youtube videos. The video follows one of the characters, Russell (using a hilarious analogy by using a pirate as the main character) who attempts to upload various videos of another character’s content, Lumpy.

The video is mainly just that, a Public Service Announcement to educate people about copyright infringement. Now, Merriam-Webster defines copyright as “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).” Likewise, Youtube Copyright School defines copyright infringement as “occurring when a copyrighted work is distributed, preformed, or publicly displayed without the permission of the copyright holder or the legal right to do so.” This video isn’t making an argument so much as a statement, but in the terms of an argument, it would be that Copyright infringement is illegal and you will get caught if you attempt to do it. The video itself is important because it makes a few distinctions between what is and isn’t copyright infringement. For example, uploading an original animation with audio from another author whose permission you did not get is still copyright infringement, even if the visual quality is your own.

Keeping up to date on copyright laws, especially in the case of those people who commonly post on Youtube (sometimes as a full-time job) is very important, as it can get very messy if copyright laws are broken. It’s also important to keep in mind that while you may think that no one might care, or even will notice any sort of copyright on a smaller channel, it likely still will be found and acted upon, and even if not, it is not made any more morally just. It’s always quite disturbing to see copyright cases turn up, as it denies the author of such content their credit for creating something that you enjoy. It may even deny them of income that they rely on, and that’s where the copyright laws are most effective and important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InzDjH1-9Ns&feature=youtu.be

So, with all that in mind, what’s the best course of action for copyright infringement outside of Youtube? In what ways can infringement cases be reduced or eliminated? Is there ever a time when taking an author’s work without permission is right, and if you think so, why?

Chosen Post: “Book Burning and 'Violent' Video Games”

     Tim Biggs the author of the article “Book Burning and 'Violent' Video Games” discusses the event that were set to take place in Southington, Connecticut in response to the Newtown tragedy. A campaign for a mass burning of violent video games is the object of discussions as the author alludes to the 'archaic' proceeding of book burning in past societies. The central argument revolves around the claim that no matter what the reason, simply setting fire to literature or media will not the dissolve the ideology or meaning within said works and is therefore and insensible practice (refers to it as negative). The author suggest it is more important address the violent content found in today media and control exposure to those, especially children, who are incapable of interpreting context of mature material.

     I agree with Biggs' suggestion that monitoring the activity and content in which children are exposed to is more important than destroying that content outright. I find it hard to believe that eliminating ever last violent video game, movie, or book would cause violence to decrease among humans. As the author points out, it is hard to imagine that by setting fire to a text or video, one can destroy the ideas and concepts behind the work as well. This could make matters worse, instead of explaining the context of situations in which our youths will inevitably be exposed to involving violence, we show them that it is justifiable to burn things they don't understand.

     Examining the other side of the article, the campaigners efforts and intentions were driven most likely with the their community's best interest in mind. As the author states the campaign received national attention and brought to light to an issue that may have been overlooked by adults/parents across the country. However as mentioned before the practice of burning video game disc accomplishes little to no positive outcomes, therefore the focus of the attention was misguided. I find it more practical to prevent children from having access to violent media (i.e. not buying it or limiting access to it) instead of burning copies of it, which most likely had to be purchased by someone in the first place.

link: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/14/book-burning-and-violent-video-games

1. Do you believe that if every single written copy of a religious text were destroyed that people would stop believing in it?
2. Is there a chance a positive way to use 'violent' media as a way to teach young minds about violence and its consequences?
3. Is the content in which we receive on the internet, TV, and so on a product of what we desire/demand or whats available and accepted among society?