Wikipedia

The article that I chose to analyze in my blog is Intelligent Design. I thought that it would be pretty interesting because any sort of crazy religious topic is usually highly debated. It turns out that I was correct. A+ for me.

The discussion over this topic is a war zone. People are going back and fourth debating the feasability of this theory and its applications, if any, to science. However, once user summed up my analysis best by saying "I came to this page looking for information on Intelligent Design. What I found instead was a (in many ways well-written) critique of intelligent design. The article seems to be falling over itself to punch holes in the theory/philosophical stance/call it what you will." Though I do not agree with the theory of intelligent design, I find it completely bias that MOST of the article is dedicated to denouncing the theory.

I expect a definition and an account of its history. Not accusations that it is not science.

Twitter

This article , written by Eric Qualman, has two focuses: the effectiveness of twitter and its inevitable downfall. For each focus Qualman lists several valid points. My favorite line in the article is "Twitter is free. If a local plumber has 1,500 followers, even if it's likely most of them aren't listening at any given moment, as long as at least one person is, that's all that matters." This shows that twitter basically follows the same principals as email spam, but on a followers only basis.

this article

Now for a quick commercial break that is completely wrong and about twitter.

Music Copyright and the internets

First, just to start out my blog on a light note, here is a parody of the anti-piracy commercial that is the beginning of a lot of films. It is making fun of the fact that if this film had been pirated, then this message wouldn't be there. It is accusing the film industry of punishing people that actually payed to see the film.

This next video is the one that I will be basing my argument on. It basically says that there needs to be a line drawn on what copyright violations are damaging and which ones are helpful.

I agree with the statements of the both of the speakers. I believe that the law should still stand firmly against those who steal copyrighted work and then turn around and sell it for a profit. Personal use of copyrighted material and remixes of the original work, however, should be considered a public good.

To make all creative properties public goods would solve most of the major problems facing media industries today, but the only way for this to ever happen is by installing a new tax. Money from this tax would be divided amongst artists based on the number of "plays" or "downloads". The government could keep track of this by inserting a "DRM" like script into the code of the file. This script would act like a digital rfid chip and track the number of downloads. The pool of money collected by the tax could then be divided accordingly.

There you have it, the cure for the cancer that the internet has been for the Media Industry.

.. your welcome.