As an educator I am continuously upset by people who try to limit information from others. To me it sounds as though the record companies want to thwart people just because they aren't getting any money from Youtube. 

This article is proof that as long as large companies run our society, we will only be fed the media they want us to see, hear, read about. 

This also brings about an issue I have about the internet and the public school system. I don't understand why Youtube is blocked on the school's internet server. There are so many educational videos which could be downloaded. 

Rights Clash on YouTube

I feel like YouTube /Google should develop the technology to distinguish between professional music videos and amateur work. It seems pretty ridiculous that a young girl singing a Christmas carol could pose any kind of threat to the success or well being of a company like Warner. The problem arises with the fact that while the amateurs aren’t making any profit off their videos, YouTube is. I could see how Warner would want to get their hands on what they feel is rightfully theirs. (After all, the sign language teacher’s video featuring Foreigner was probably the only money Warner has made off of that band in years!) It’s hard for me to pick sides- which billion-dollar company should reap profits of these amateur videos? Hmmm…
I think its especially unfair to remove videos like Juliet Weybret’s- she is not even playing an actual recording of the song, she herself is singing it. Once you start to remove videos like this you are just asking for trouble. This freedom is why so many people use YouTube! Once they start claiming that these personal renditions are somehow copyright infringements, YouTube is going to alienate and ultimately loose the very contributors who generate their revenue.

Music, Videos and Money.

It’s always sad to see when issue with money becomes the most important thing. Clearly we value money over self-expression and creativity. I doubt this whole issue with the copyright would have happened if you Tube or Google were not involved. I feel this whole issue is going to hinder in a way the growth of aspiring artists. Typically I feel you begin your career as a singer, or musician or even a painter participating in some form of appropriation at some point or another. Like the article mention, the people who post their videos on you tube have no intention of making money off of it or doing a disservice to the original versions. They are just expressing themselves and their talents. Is Warner really that greedy? Is it really necessary for them to be all “this is my property, get off”? I think they need to set on a deal and just deal with it. They have more money then most people who post on you tube will ever have. Lame.

Although I am a fan of youtube and enjoy watching music videos on their site, Warner does have the right to block videos that feature their music. Copyrights are extremely important and are made to prevent people from stealing an artists work. If I was the writer of the song "Take on me" by A-Ha personally don't think I would appreciate someone taking my song and changing all the lyrics around, even if its for a humorous reason. Dustin McLean's video is extremely clever but when someone types in "Take on me" in the youtube search engine it would not be fair for his video to pop up next to A-Ha's. Although, I love being able to search for music on youtube it does get distracting with all the copies and covers that you have to filter through. I see Warner's point of why they would want their music removed from youtube, it isn't necessarily helping them rather it mainly improves youtube's profits.

Article 6

Looks like YouTube is not the same as it once was. I think part of the charm/coolness of YouTube was that anyone could be creative and post a video of them doing ANYthing. At leas that’s how I’ve always looked at it. Things always get more complicated when money and power become involved. I can see why Warner music would not want the original video and song up if they weren’t getting anything out of it, but why do they have to try and control the little people? People like the high school aspiring rock star and the sign language teacher are people doing creative things and are using music that they like to do it. I don’t see what big business has to lose with people like that. Sites like YouTube and FunnyorDie.com make us feel as though we can truly express ourselves, but there is always someone lurking around the corner to bust us. What do they really have to lose??

My question is why won't youtube, now owned by mega mogul Google, strike a deal with warner music? Do they feel they don't need them? Or that the force of youtube will sweep the old boys' clubs rules away if they wait long enough? or that public opinion will somehow decide an outcome? I would like to be a fly on the wall, listening to that debate. That said, the question of ownership and what constitutes infringment in our brave new internetted world is ongoing. Youtube is a public forum, but lorded over by those with private interests. We've grown to think of it as a "freezone" equal oppurtunity employer (with no money exchanged.) Google is making money off of other peoples desire to show their stuff. Record companies have made innordinate profits off the backs of artists for years, because the only way for musicians to reach the masses was to be "discovered" by someone at a record co. and be promoted all the way to fame and fortune. Many have embraced independence, but the crumbling of the old ownership system has affected the artists too. While the new generation adapts to the new apparent Glastnost, there are many musicians who feel they have lost even more control of their art. I know of one well known jazz player who would stop concert if he saw someone recording it. Others see it as free publicity. For artists, the struggle has always been how can I connect my work to the public, the way I envision it, and how can I make enough money to continue to be an artist. The modes of control are forever shifting but ultimatly the issue of money emerges on either side. How bout if we do away with this pesky money thing. It complicates everything!

neuroasthetics

Personally, I always find this kind of research to be annoying. If you want to study the brain and it's reaction to stimuli, fine. That in itself can be fascinating. The process of all these electric impulses working together to form a concept of reality, real or created is interesting and profound. But trying to measure beauty, or to say that there is such thing as "universal beauty" seems to me ridiculous. We do not all find the same things beautiful. Maybe there are specific parts of our brains that "activate" when we find something beautiful, but any composite potrait I've seen, claiming to create "the perfect face" does nothing for me. And comparing brain centers lighting up during a deeply moving experience looking at a painting, to someone responding to it's financial or cultural "value" is just silly! (and a superficial understanding.) Obviously they are not the same in any real way. Though there are some images many people respond to positivly, I think  personal experiences including memories and dreams have as much if not more to do with personal taste then some concept of universal beauty, or an external value system. Of course we are all influenced by our cultural experience and maybe to some extent by genetic memory. I wonder what someone from a completely different culture would think, looking at some of our "masterpieces. I can't help but be reminded of the movie "the Gods must be Crazy." It seems to me this article is extremely eurocentric and egocentric on the part of the author and his subject. Their attempts try to neatly package the power of the language of art by breaking it down to compartments which they observe, but in my mind, don't understand. The part of this article I found most interesting was the concept that it is nearly impossible to translate what is in an artists mind to actualization.  I thought the idea that the reason we relate to unfinished works is that realization of the impossibility of perfection in a finished piece was correct. Now that I'm writing this, it sounds rather highbrow and pretentious. but still, somthing about it is interesting to me. I think an unfinished artwork, invites the viewer partly to finish it with thier own mind. They become part of the creative process. And that is satisfying on some level.