"The 'average' American will spend in excess of seven years watching television"
Geez. . .I love my TV, but it's a wonder what I could accomplish if I didn't have one. Most of my TV watching is sports releated. Occassionaly, I will watch a program on the History Channel or Discovery, but as far as network television goes I rarely watch. I used to watch much more network television when I was younger. This was the case because I lived in an area that did not have cable. We were able to receive three channels, and two of those where the same network from different cities! During my high school and college years my TV watching centered around Thursday nights on NBC. I watched The Cosby Show, Cheers, and Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the last show I watched religiously. Now, as I channel surf, I will occasionally watch an rerun of Scrubs or get sucked into an episode of "Flava of Love" (good grief), but mostly I'm watching some sporting event. Typically, if the Cowboys or the Aggies are on, I'm going to be watching.
I'm not sure if I can agree with Johnson premise that TV is making us better cognitive thinkers. I can agree that perhaps our visual spatial skills have improved, but I cannot condone more TV watching for the sake of TV watching. I understand his arguments that TV shows have gotten more complex. The plots are now multi layered; there is less "flashing arrows." But, my main bone of contention is that he parallels his premise on the supposed benefits of reading. So we find us smack dab in the middle of the literacy myth once again.
Watching television maybe intellectually stimulating if you are watching television critically. More to come.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Property
This weeks readings have been fascinating to say the least.
Lessig's chapter on intellectual property and ownership rights is very interesting. This is a topic I haven't really given much attention although after reading this chapter, I now realize how dangerous limiting access to creative property can be to our society.
On the surface the statement appears to be a "no-brainer" : intellectual property should be protected the same as actual property. What's interesting about this viewpoint is how fundamentally basic it sounds, but how damaging absolute authorial control of intellectual property can be. Controlling access to creative property to a select few, creates a vacuum for new ideas. Lessig argues that the establishment dictates how intellectual property will be distributed, and the establishment will do whatever in its power to maintain their power.
I also found it extremely interesting that as technology (namely the Internet) has developed the apparent need to protect one's creative work has increased. Lessig's four modalities highlight the balance that is needed to control user access, and throughout our history copyright laws, technological advances, society values, and marketing schemes have been used to control the access to creative property. The White Paper in 1995 illustrates this point as the "warriors" pushed for tighter regulation of intellectual property through changes in all four regulatory modalities. What's the problem with industry wanting to protect it's way of doing business? Lessig argues, "It is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation" (128). The danger is that the changes to intellectual property rights will circumvent the checks and balances in place and stifle new ideas and thus prevent progress.
Lessig's chapter on intellectual property and ownership rights is very interesting. This is a topic I haven't really given much attention although after reading this chapter, I now realize how dangerous limiting access to creative property can be to our society.
On the surface the statement appears to be a "no-brainer" : intellectual property should be protected the same as actual property. What's interesting about this viewpoint is how fundamentally basic it sounds, but how damaging absolute authorial control of intellectual property can be. Controlling access to creative property to a select few, creates a vacuum for new ideas. Lessig argues that the establishment dictates how intellectual property will be distributed, and the establishment will do whatever in its power to maintain their power.
I also found it extremely interesting that as technology (namely the Internet) has developed the apparent need to protect one's creative work has increased. Lessig's four modalities highlight the balance that is needed to control user access, and throughout our history copyright laws, technological advances, society values, and marketing schemes have been used to control the access to creative property. The White Paper in 1995 illustrates this point as the "warriors" pushed for tighter regulation of intellectual property through changes in all four regulatory modalities. What's the problem with industry wanting to protect it's way of doing business? Lessig argues, "It is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation" (128). The danger is that the changes to intellectual property rights will circumvent the checks and balances in place and stifle new ideas and thus prevent progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)