Celebritology: Who's relevant in 2012-2013 according to Time, its readers and myself?

Celebritology is highly relevant to me in the field of news. In TV and films, I delve into actors and there relevance, but looking at every celebrity from every field and contemplating their relative importance to one another is a highly refined art for anyone writing about news because anyone writing articles for even a community level has to think objectively about who and what is newsworthy when undergoing both the pitching and selection process. I decided not only to dive into this year's poll that precedes Time's 100 Most Influential People issue but to publicize those results as well. In making my decisions, I openly admit I'm biased with personal relevance and the degree of personal contact I've had with the stories of these people, which is the filter through which we all experience and decide what is newsworthy. Here are the first fifty names out of the 153 candidates.

The numbers after the names are the percentage of online viewers who deemed them newsworthy/influential/relevant after which is my vote which is either Yes, No or Abstain (if I didn't have enough info to make a decision either way):

Ben Affleck-53%-Yes-His comeback story captivated us and in the process said a lot about our relationship with celebrities. Also, winning the Oscar for best picture and gaming the voting system in the process surely makes you relevant.

Roger Ailes (Fox News Chief)-Abstain-Just not educated enough about him and his role to know much. I'd argue that the most partisan news networks didn't shape the 2012 election as much as previous ones but I don't know his extent into it all

Bashar Assad-Yes-He's killed 70,000 people for godsakes. When the Onion writes an article that barely qualifies as satire and looks more as a desperate attempt to inform people of the atrocity, you're not only relevant, but more people should definitely know about you. Just to reiterate here, newsworthy doesn't necessarily qualify as a good thing.

Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin politician and the first openly gay U.S. Senator)-82%-No-It's 2012. Being an openly gay anything except possibly professional sports player isn't enough to warrant relevance in my eyes. 

Benedict XVI-45%-No-Being the retiring Pope isn't as newsworthy as being the incoming Pope who looks to bring some real reforms and attitude changes, so I'd rather see the news coverage go to the new guy

David and Victoria Beckham-20%-Yes-I'm contradicting myself because I advocated not caring about a retiree in my last vote, but then again, Beckham's reign with MLS (and the end of that reign is newsworthy via its timeliness) did lead to spectacular growth for the league which provides a lesson to other leagues on how to create an international sensation. Victoria, on her own, is the least newsworthy entry on the entire list.

Fatou Bensouda (Gambian lawyer/UN Prosecutor)-75%-Yes-Although it's close to abstain because I'm not that well-informed on this issue

Beyonce-68%-Yes-An activist whose especially close to the Obama administration, one of the most popular singers of the present day, performed at both the Inaguration and the Superbowl, that qualifies in the world of arts

Kathryn Bigelow-63%-No-I saw the movie myself and it wasn't too far-removed from an episode of Homeland. In other words, Bigelow's not the first to explore the dark side to the world on terrorism and eloquently put it into art.

Michael Bloomberg-62%-Yes-As a remarkable politician who's usurping the very democratic ideal of term limits in the country's most powerful city, Bloomberg is nearly always relevant, but the timeliness angle helps which comes from the soda ban controversy and the gun laws

Usain Bolt-78%-Marginally Yes-In 2008 and 2009 he would be a resounding yes, but timeliness is about something new which he didn't necessarily do. He still made the biggest headlines in the Summer Olympics which is the biggest sporting event in history

Cory Booker-72%-Yes-This is almost an abstain for me, because while I'm well-informed about him as a person and how he's one of the country's most effective mayors and most forward-thinking and politicians, I am unclear as to his timeliness. I recently went to a talk by a couple young mayors and they both said they were heavily inspired by Booker which barely qualifies him in my relative experience. The point here is that news is timely and its also personally relevant.

David Bowie-82%-No-Yes, he's famous, but timeliness, guys: What have you done for me lately? The timeliness problem is why I cringe at the fact that Paul McCartney seems to get interviewed every two or three months by some gushy morning show anchor. It's also why I suspect he has a high vote

Ben Bernake-Abstain-I'm not well-informed about the topics in the business section of the newspaper

Jeff Bezos-84%-No-I can't vote yes for every internet CEO. I'm going to use timeliness here and suggest that Bezos is inevitably doing great things every year, but I don't remember hearing of anything particularly notable coming from Amazon

John Brennan-45%-Yes-His confirmation process was protested by innocent bystanders if that's not enough controversy for you. 

Connie Britton-30%-No-Please, she's not even a good actress. 

Warren Beatty-Abstain

Emad Burnat-(Palestinian documentarian whose 5 Broken Cameras was nominated for an Oscar)-83%-No-Being nominated for an Academy Award for best film makes you far more relevant than best documentary. Five films get nominated each year and far fewer than that number (What else besides Exit Through the Gift Shop, Waiting for Superman, An Inconvenient Truth, Michael Moore's films, Supersize Me do you guys actually remember?) actually make their way into the cultural consciousness. As someone who follows film, I haven't heard of that one (remember: personal relevance comes through personal experience so I'm judging based on whether something is newsworthy to me)

David Cameron-49%-Yes-The Prime Minister of Britain is big enough that I'll give a rare timeliness pass to. In other words, I know nothing about what he's done in the past 12 months, but I'll make an educated guess that he, being the PM of Great Britain has done plenty.

Sister Simone Campbell (Executive director of Network, a liberal Catholic advocacy group, and leader of the Nuns on the Bus movement to promote public programs for the poor)-83%-Yes-I've read about her in the news and with religion being a hot topic this year, that makes her more relevant

Robert Cantu (Neurosurgeon, co-director of Boston University’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy and a leading expert on concussions)-86%-Marginally Yes-The gimmick here is that he's being put in the Top 100 to put a face on the science community that's involved with the hot topic on football concussions. However, the question is whether Robert Cantu, himself, is significant in the battle against preventing concussions, or whether he's one of many professionals that is getting a disproportionate share of the credit. At the end of the day, I think the football concussion debate deserves a larger platform of readership which would be accomplished with Cantu's inclusion.

Robert Caro (Journalist and author of a 30-years-in-the-making Lyndon B. Johnson opus)-40%-Marginal Yes-Distinguishing between academics in terms of relevance is a difficult task because so many of them are quietly changing and influencing the world. Caro gets a yes from me because, if nothing else he's interesting (devoting 30 years of your life on a book about Lyndon Johnson, who would do that?) and I'd like to read more about him. 

Jackie Chan (Hong Kong martial-arts king and outspoken Chinese political appointee)-78%-No-His newsworthiness as a movie star (seriously, check the box office receipts on his films) is at least 10 years past its expiration date, and to what degree is he being an outspoken voice with regard to Chinese policy. It's like how at least one out of every three famous people in Hollywood is an ambassador for UNICEF. I admire your commitment to a cause, guys, but in very few cases have I ever been influenced by your message (not to take away from the people in those foreign countries hearing your message). 

Jessica Chastain-60%-Yes-Although she didn't win the Oscar, Chastain is one of the hottest and most relevant actresses in Hollywood and her amazing performance in Bigelow's film did a lot to capture the zeitgeist on the War on Terror. Bigelow made a film that, at the end of the day, proved unremarkable, but the performance of Chastain in that film is worth talking about. 

Ferrodon Abbasi-Davani (Head of Iran’s nuclear program)-49%-Abstain-I have no idea of his involvement with said nuclear program so a big fat abstain for me. 

Chan Guangang  (Activist holding China to account from exile in New York City)-84%-Yes-It's the difference between any old Civil Rights leader or Harriett Tubman or Rosa Parks. The latter examples are remarkable stories that moves and inspires us. Aside from causing an international incident, he inspires us.

Perry Chen, CEO of Kickstarter-94%-Yes-He's changing art and commerce so most definitely. He's the reason you cautiously vote no on someone like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or the Google guys. In technology news, always be on the lookout for the next best thing. 

Yao Chen, Chinese Microblogger-63%-No-Sorry lady, there's only room for one Chinese activist in our national cultural consciousness and Guangang took that spot, but you finish ahead of Jackie Chan in my book. 

Chris Christie-63%-Yes-Governors are so interesting in terms of newsworthiness because they usually are bright, colorful, and often uninhibited public figures with a lot more power than their national coverage usually merits. In the case of Christie with Hurricane Sandy and his influence on the presidential race, a resounding yes. 

Bill Clinton-Abstain-He's relevant every year and every political news election. It would be difficult to separate 2012 Bill Clinton from 2011 Bill Clinton from 2004 Bill Clinton so I won't even try. 

Hillary Clinton-Yes-Being Seceretary of State is already high enough on the relevance factor, but throwing in the fact that she was under scrutiny for Bengazi as she was exiting and that became one of the hot button issues in the 2012 race qualifies her

Tom Coburn-29%-No, Sorry esteemed Senator buddy, I live in Washington and read Politico on my commute often and your name hasn't popped up enough to my liking

Bryan Cranston-72%-No, as a TV blogger who's been exposed to message board discussions and articles along the lines of "Breaking Bad: Best show of the year, best show of all time, or single greatest thing since sliced bread" for the past five years or so, I'm calling B.S. on timeliness. Bryan Cranston and Breaking Bad have both been mind-boggingly deserving of praise for the past five years. Nothing new here. Especially since the show doesn't officially end till this summer. If you want to give Breaking Bad a relevance bump upon its finale, at least wait until the 2014 issue. 

Andrew Cuomo-75%-No. Being Governor of the one of the most important states in the country and the one that, by far, commands the most news coverage, doesn't automatically make you man of the year, sorry. Also, I'm not buying nepotism as an excuse here either. 

Paula Deen (Popular TV cooking personality raising awareness about diabetes)-20%-No-I have only barely heard of you and seriously doubt you're having as much of an effect on our consumption as the great Jamie Oliver has. As Emeril Lagasse, Padma Lakshmi, Rachel Ray, Ted Allen and a billion others have demonstrated: I'm sure you'll be replaced with the next, best thing on the Food Network before this issue goes to press.

Jack Dorsey (Twitter creator and a founder and CEO of Square, a company that allows smartphone users to process credit-card payments through their mobile devices)-88%-Yes-Twitter is growing but the advent of Square really seals it

Kim Dotcom (Eccentric Internet legend and creator of the controversial file-sharing site Megaupload who has seen his influence rise along with his legal troubles)-74%-No-I'm philosophically against this person's movement of the internet being free and open source and intellectual property be damned, but then again being a bad guy doesn't disqualify you from being newsworthy (as noted with Assad). Instead, it's the fact that wanting to free the internet is nothing new.  If we're going to acknowledge Kim dotcom, are we going to give news attention to the guys selling bootleg DVDs on Times Square or the person who steals candy from the candy store?

Gabby Douglas-88%-Yes-As opposed to the first openly gay senator, being the first black Gold Medal gymnast seems relevant to me because that is one of the premiere sports in the Olympics. Her post-racial attitude towards the accomplishment was also discussion-provoking. She was also AP female athlete of the year and that's the sort of quantifiable evidence you can use to her case

Dr. James Downing (Scientific director at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, where his Pediatric Cancer Genome Project is decoding the genetic drivers of childhood cancers)-98%-No-It's almost an abstain because I haven't heard of his project, but at the end of the day, I went with the argument against Robert Cantu and deemed him unnewsworthy because a lot of people are fighting cancer every year and I haven't read any newspaper headlines in the past 12 months that say "Cancer Cured!"

Lena Dunham-54%-No-This is based on the personal relevance angle here: I haven't seen her show which reflects how the landscape of TV has changed from 20 years ago. There are so many good must-see programs that practically no TV aficionado can see them all which dilutes the influence of any TV personality.

Daniel Ek (Founder and CEO of Spotify, the booming music-streaming service)-76%-No-When compares to twitter, square and kickstarter, I don't think Spotify makes the cut. First of all, Spotify's newness is diluted by the advent of Pandora which came first. Second of all, the crises revolving around the externalities of music sharing mostly happened in the 2000's. Youtube ads and itunes were the big heroes of the day.

Jimmy Fallon-66%-Marginal Yes-He's gotten more popular in the past couple years, his entertainment style is definitely new and relevant from a media-perspective (he incorporates facebook, the news, and twitter into his segments) and he's slotted to take over for Leno now so he's an even bigger player on the landscape.  

Mo Farrah-British track star-81%-Marginal Yes-I'm a beat writer for distance running so I think the guy's accomplishment is humongous when I realize how few people are able to double at the Olympics (especially in a British uniform). Aside from the personal perspective, I think as a hometown hero, he's also a somewhat of a big deal and star of the London Olympics

Melinda Gates-Abstain

Neil Gaiman (Prolific cult novelist with 1.8 million Twitter followes and an HBO show in the works)-96%-No-1.8 million Twitter followers was newsworthy outside the twittersphere in 2010 but not anymore. Voting yes for Neil would be breaking a long-standing journalistic rule: Don't give too much coverage to a guy who hasn't acomplished anything yet. An HBO show in the works isn't significant. The guy who made the now-cancelled "Sh%t My Parents Say" is a long-forgotten part of pop culture although he was a hot news item before the show aired

John Green (Teen fiction author and video blogger with legions of online fans)-95%-No-I'm on youtube a lot and have never heard of this guy and without a quantitative number of fans, I'm definitely in the no category. Again as with Neil, crossing over to mainstream media and succeeding wildly there is what would get my vote with internet media content wunderkinds. 

Roger Goodell (Commissioner of pro football, which remains America’s most popular sport despite a rising tide of safety concerns)-11%-As I mentioned before I think the safety concerns of football is very relevant and appropriate hot button topic.

Julian Fellowes-67%-Marginal Yes-I'm making a choice based on taste here between two shows I've never seen that Downtown Abbey is marginally worth talking about in the Time 100 Issue and voting Fellowes in.

Julia Gillard (Australian Prime Minister whose parliamentary speech about the opposition leader’s misogyny was heard around the world)-Abstain-Australia is either a G8 country or as important as one so if she was just elected Prime Minister I'd be more willing to consider her for a year, but the blurb doesn't say. A female head of state (see Brazil, Liberia, Argentina, Germany) is nothing new in this day of age and I'd expect that misogyny on the part of the opposition that's running against you isn't that new either, so nothing yes-worthy I can discern.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler-93%-Marginal Yes-Tina Fey has been a media darling and surely eligible for this list A LOT of successive years. I'm inclined to put her through this year because she's been packaged with Amy Poehler who could maker the list on her own and it's appropriate because the two hosted a talk show.

Gabby Giffords-81%-A resounding yes-Gabby Giffords is a humongous news story and deserving hero that could command even more coverage than she's currently getting. If she were on every front page of America every day, I'm not sure I would mind

Seth Meyers-Yes-The great thing about watching SNL stars rise is up in the cultural consciousness is that they're really nobodies when they start out. I'm sure that new cast additions like Tim Robinson, Vanessa Bayer, Bobby Moynihan and Aidy Bryant are among the least-searched names in the entirety of IMDB. I think Meyers is one of the most relevant stand-up comedians, most promising awards show hosts (did you see him at the ESPY's) and most people don't know he's the head writer of SNL

Asexuals: Underrpresented on TV?

I just learned that there's a such thing as an asexual person when reading the biography of Janeane Gorafolo (http://splitsider.com/2012/02/saturday-nights-children-janeane-garofalo-1994-1995). They have a need for emotional companionship from the opposite sex like everyone else, but they apparently don't have a need for physical intimacy and this group makes up 1% of the population. They even have a support network online.


Now consider how various ethnic and sexual minorities have pressed for change in terms of seeing more of their kind on TV and how with enough pressure, TV shows have cast more gay, black, and Latino characters. I've read about black people recalling how seeing Uhura on Star Trek or the Cosby Show had a powerful positive effect on them. The flipside of that is what if you're asexual and don't have much interest in sex, it must make you feel very alone to be surrounded by images of people who's end goals are driven by relationships and sexual. A disproportionate number of TV character arcs are written that way because it makes for more compelling drama. Media studies classes (or at least, my media studies class) note that discrepancy between the end-point of stories always being love and real life. However, TV conventions still haven't changed too much.


Considering most TV shows (especially) gear their characters towards an endpoint of falling in love with someone or having a relationship, it would have been nice to have a character on TV who is asexual.

Sheldon on the Big Bang theory is a refreshing change to that, but they paired him up with Amy.  I love this show but I've really only seen the first couple seasons on reruns, so I'm not the expert, but I wonder if his relationship with Amy is representative of an asexual relationship.


If it isn't I'm pretty disappointed. It's probably fans saying "Sheldon should be happy and find love" and I don't think it was necessarily organic to the character, especially considering there are actually people like him.

[Update: I have yet to see a 4th season episode, but I understand from message board reactions that Amy and Sheldon's relationship is indeed asexual. So good for the Big Bang Theory for putting minorities on TV in more ways than one!]

This lent, give up google searches?

Disclaimer: This is more of a brainstorm than something that should be considered a fully-thought out blog post.

As someone who writes content and markets it over the internet, I am an avid student of how people find information in Web 2.0. Most of what I learn, however, disappoints me.
I think the idea of "googling" has always been distressing to me. At first, I didn't like it because it was a somewhat arduous task that didn't get good information back to you. Now that the web search has admittedly improved, it's hard to fall back on that as an excuse for why I don't like googling, leaving me to fall back on other reasons, beyond the traditional "not knowing what you're getting or how reliable it is, along with occasionally still not getting what you're looking for" excuses.

When I was a freshman in college, I learned of the idea of "texts" which, as I understand it (and I might be off), is the idea of getting your body of knowledge from a single source. Simply put, anything on a bibliography is a text. A textbook, an article, etc. More than that texts are people.

Your wise uncle, your professor, your third grade teacher, even a guy you talk with on an also count as texts. In the old days, knowledge was passed on through oral traditions and that's probably part of why yore was so appealling. There probably was some importance to knowledge being part of a social function. Religious people who are passionate about gaining spiritual guidance seek out a clergyman (rabbi, priest, shaman, what have you) or other spiritual teacher. Similarly, people who want to succeed as athletes seek out a coach. I don't know about all people but I recently spent some time with a former opera singer who said she'd go back to the profession if she could find the right vocal coach. Is it possible that the best way to learn for these people is through a one-on-one learning relationship, you have to ask if that's not the best way to go about a lot of things.




When you use that same "text" for everything, all your texts and sources are getting muddled. Even if your google search takes you to site A, B, and C, and you selected Site B, you don't process it as such. If you were to relay how you got the information to someone else, you wouldn't say "I got it from Site B." You'd say "I googled it."

Shouldn't Site B get the credit and deserve to be your source of information next time? Wouldn't it be beneficial for you to return to site B as well?  That's what I do.The internet affords us a lot of opportunities to get acquainted with texts, and I take advantage of all of them. I hardly ever go to google. If I want to know about a TV show's history, I got to TV.com, if I want to know a cast listing, I go to imdb.com, and if I want to know a schedule, I'll go to imdb or tvgen. If I want to know about a newspaper market, I'll go to the Virginia Press Association, MediaBistro, or 50States. These are all just a couple of examples, but the point is I have a fairly good virtual roadmap of the internet for all my needs.


In my opinion (although I'm not really the expert), we don't go the extra mile because googling is a cognitive shortcut. We're shutting off our brains to a proverbial GPS. 

Craigslist is a societal evil

First off, do make an effort to click here if you're reading this so that I can get revenue. Thank you so much

I really don't know much about economics, but I've always been taught as a child that nothing in life is free.

I would have thought that as I grew up, I would see more evidence of this, but at the same time, the world has changed in what seem to me to be bizarre ways. Things that used to cost money are now free on the internet. On the one hand we can celebrate the democratizing nature of this, but we also have to note the consequences. So much of our economy has shifted to the service and knowledge sectors that we threaten to put a lot of people out of business with the internet.

If someone posts real-estate or birdwatching advice for free online, you're taking away money from someone who does that for a living. I'm not suggesting that the person who's not a professional isn't allowed to write on the side as a hobby, but I am suggesting that he should have to acept money for it.

It's like how you are legally required to charge money if you are holding a public screening of a movie (except for outdoor screenings) because that is a law that benefits the greater good. You can't show something for free that was made to make money.

In this case, let's look at craigslist: The founder of craigslist, Craig Newmark, envisions himself as a do-gooder of sorts. He doesn't want to make money and therefore doesn't look at maximizing profit. He says in Wired Magazine "My big mission is to help make grassroots democracy as much a part of our government as representative democracy." Wired choses to attack Newmark on the grounds that he's somewhat dictatorial in the way he controls craigslist, but I won't even go to the absurdity of that since his site doesn't do anything political.

Let's just go to the question: Is someone who decides not to try to make money off his site becaue of altruistic reasons, actually doing good?

I'd say no. He might be saving people who want to advertise for jobs or housing a small amount of money, but he's also putting a lot more people out of business. Ads for housing and jobs have been the bedrock of the newspaper industry. How much does Craig Newmark contribute to the economy? He employs only about 30 people. Try measuring that against the number of people that the newspaper industry employed or the value that they had to society as a necessary component of democracy (something that Newmark proclaimed he wanted to improve, ironically).

I am glad that Newmark charged a small fee for jobs, but he should charge a fee for housing as well. People would usually be willing to pay it.

How to save the Washington Post or any newspaper for that matter

I have been very interested in media and how to revive the dying industry of newspapers. I do believe newspapers have a tremendous amount to offer over the internet as I wrote here.

I've been reading a couple really good blogs that talk about the issue of how new media is disastrous for old media and such. The first is Andrew Keen who wrote the book Cult of the Amutuer. The second is by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, who has a lot of good insight into technology.

Nonetheless, I keep reading a lot of articles about how much trouble the Washington Post is in. A lot of these articles are written by writers of the Washington Post themselves commenting on how much peril newspapers are in in their paid sections. People are being laid off multiple times every year and I read columns by editors saying "I'm sorry to go because I accepted the buyout package."

Here's how I recommend it be saved:
1. Don't fire columnists who have built a following. Consider those people insispensable when making layoffs. I liked the "Magazine Reader" for example and I'm not sure if there are other examples I can remember offhand of columnists I was familiar with accepting a buyout and leaving, but that's certainly big. In fact, have your columnists appear in public more (like the Post Hunt) so they can be more recognizable and be personalities that people are invested in (an example of this is Michael Wilbon from PTI)

2. Become non-profit and accept donations or just accept donations period. You've pleaded your case with your readers quite gallantly in the newspaper with this string of articles about how newspapers are dying. I think people are starting to get the point that at 75 cents an issue and pretty much all of it online for free, that the newspaper can't keep running as is and plenty of people are invested in saving it. If you haven't made the point, keep making the point more. Let the public know that if they like this institution they'll have to support it.

Or better yet....
3. Find things for them to pay for and remind them that your purchase helps keep the paper alive. Only allow online discussions for subscribers and if they're not subscribing, charge for them: ESPN the magazine does it and it works. Just as people will pay for concerts because they wish to see and interact with artists, do the same thing. Charge an admission fee for the Post Race. Charge to get a file out of the archives. There are plenty of newspapers like the Virginian-Pilot in Eastern Virginia have done this. Economic incentive plus a little bit of the feeling that you're making that purchase for altruistic reasons is a good combo.

4. Be unapologetic when you are making money. A dinner recently got cancelled that would have connected lobbyists to power players in Washington. I might be naive (and this is something I will admit, I'm entirely uneducated on and wouldn't mind being corrected on if I'm wrong) but as far as unethical things go, that wasn't so bad. I think that your critics just have to realize you're on life support.

5. Lobby for stimulus money. Newspapers are one of THE most-troubled and necessary industries today and if cars and banks can get the stimulus money, why can't you?

In my view...

Is file-sharing and downloading wrong?

I have so many thoughts on the current age we live in where technology allows us so many shortcuts in commerce. Like Andrew Keen, I greatly worry about the effect that web 2.0 has on art, society, and values. This is one of a few different essays, I've written on the topic on helium, including an expose on someone who is downloading the entirety of films on youtube:

One of the more worrisome aspects of the internet and the file-sharing that originated with Napster two years ago is how people believe that right or wrong is not as much of an issue if everyone is partaking in it. Downloading copyrighted music and videos have not become any less wrong just because it is more widespread or the punishments for such activity aren't being enforced. That being said, there are various degrees of wrong with this issue depending on a few factors.

The most prevalent of these is whether you disseminate the material. The difference between whether you disseminate (i.e. share through posting on youtube or a bit torrent) the material and whether you simply choose to download the material is analogous to the difference between an arms dealer and someone who uses a weapon. Uploading a song or video to the internet that isn't yours is wrong in many ways because it takes away the value of another person's work. Downloading a song illegally encourages the uploader to continue his wrongdoing and deprives the creator of the work of profit or whatever else he intended to do with his work.

Specifically, downloading copyrighted music and videos and reproducing them is a violation of of the Fair Use Act which states that you're not allowed to reproduce copyrighted content unless it's from criticism, comment, scholarship, news reporting, or research and there are certain restrictions based on, among other things: The portion used in relation to the entire copyrighted work, the effect of the copyright on market value and the nature of the copyrighted work.

Looking at this law closely reveals that copyright violation is not entirely a black-and-white issue and there are degrees of wrongdoing. Are we sampling a piece of the song or are we just stealing the whole body of work? Are we using the download for some useful creative purpose such as providing commentary of our own or do we just want to hear the song? To me, these stipulations make a lot of sense and help clarify the line between wrong and right.

The intention of the copyright owner is of course something that we overlook the most. Was it a commercial song intended to make money in some form for the artist? In this day and age, a number of artists are increasingly giving out content for free as part of a larger marketing plan. If that's the intent of the artist, than downloading it is ok. At the same time, perhaps that particular artist decided that he wants to charge money for some of his work and that is also his perogative. Just because similar artists are able to give out songs for free does not mean that all artists can profit from that model and we feel that we have a right to download their content for free.

Too often, we are guilty of assuming a "Robin Hood" complex with music that must be paid for. We say to ourselves "Oh, that money is just going to go to the record companies" as if we are doing the people a favor. In truth, we do not know how taking these songs or videos affects the people who are producing it. In a worst case scenario we are putting the artists we want to enjoy out of business by not financially supporting them and we are also depriving ourselves from enjoying the fruits of their labor since they can no longer support ourselves as artists.

Bottom line: As consumers and citizens who live under a code of laws including the very basic one- "Thou Shalt Not Steal" - we need to take responsiblity for how we chose to consume art or art won't survive

Stop the internet, get out of the house

I read in the newspaper how there are some companies that are looking into introducing services and technology for downloading movies. I did write in my last post about how the movie theater business has some sly ways of getting money from people like with the expensive popcorn and all but I would trade the movie theater experience for downloading a movie onto your computer any day of the week. I think a movie theater is an awesome experience: it's definitely part of the escapist element that you go to that big room with the screen and watch it there instead of from your home. That's why I worked at a movie theater too: Because of the atmosphere

I think our society is actually getting too dependent on the internet period for our pop culture fix, which really spells the chaos of our society. I don't know if people are aware of this. I'm really just one person on this planet and can only do so much, and like the "stop pollution in the ozone layer" movement or "stop children soldiers" movement, I really don't see anything getting done on this front of stopping the internet or anything, so like any young person that doesn't control the world (at least not yet), i'm just gonna hope that the powers that be who control things know what they're doing with the internet. I mean isn't it obvious to everyone that if we all get all our arts stuff (movies, music, e-books) everything off the internet for free, then the artists who make them won't make any money and they'll be forced to go do another profession? How selfish of all of you?

Personally, I like to buy books, newspapers and magazines when I can. I also like to buy tickets to movies, and I like to buy CDs as well. Even if I'm strapped for cash, I'd rather do that than download music over the internet. Well, allright, i still download music from the internet but i make it a point to buy CDs. That's actually not a bad way to live: Feeling you have to buy CDs because it's a charitable cause, even when it's out of your budget range. I'm worried that that stuff spreads to newspaper and book circulation and I think it's much nicer to read things out of a newspaper than to read things out of the internet and scroll your screen up and down.

Anyway, the internet is now everything for someone like my older sister. My older sister does everything through the internet. She's a 25-year old (or maybe she's 26, i can never keep track) college professor who grades papers through the internet and posts assignments through it. She also uses the internet to do pretty much everything: book flights, seek jobs, pay her bills, buy holiday and birthday gifts for her family, buy books, book hotels, etc., etc.

I am totally the opposite. I perfer to go to the mall and buy presents there. I perfer to call the hotels (my sister never uses the phone, if she can email) and call the airlines myself or maybe even go to the airport. I think doing this stuff gets me fresh air. The airport is a fun place to see. I also would never really know how i felt about a hotel or a job for that matter without seeing the place. I'm very environment-based in the sense that i'd only know how much I'd like a place if i was there myself. There was a job with a long application i wasn't sure if i wanted to waste my time applying to, so I actually looked up the address for the job and went over there and walked around for a while and asked for a tour of the place before i decided i wanted to waste my time with an application.

Hell, I don't even like blogging. If it would advance my career just the same, I would easily write this stuff on paper and post it in the town square (or i suppose they call it the Arlington County Government Offices).