In American culture, our way of life is self-defined for its uniqueness, individuality, independence and freedom. Freedom is really a loose term today when we consider many of the restrictions that do not hold when bearing in mind the first amendment in the Bill of Rights of our U.S. Constitution. For those reading this blog, I hope and pray that the reader knows what the first amendment is or at least knows what it means.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
When Americans self-define our culture, their explanation of freedom usually starts with the first amendment to the Constitution.
Today, Americans have the ability to express their “freedom of speech” through several different avenues especially with the popularity of the World Wide Web. Many users of the Internet write about what they want, show pictures publicly, deliver propaganda and also make videos. Lawrence Lessig’s book, Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, questions the fact that copyright and permission issues in America that exist today are far more extreme and unwarranted comparatively to the days before the World Wide Web.While Lessig gives his reader examples pertaining to instances in culture that were believed and practiced to be free, his main argument is based on the idea that technology over the course of the twentieth century has affected American culture’s freedom and has turned into a more “permission culture.”
Everyday it seems as though we hear about another instance of copyright violation pertaining to illegal usage of songs or illegal usage of copyrighted video. Many make the argument that one’s usage of script such as books or magazines, songs, photos, and video is for small and personal use and should not violate copyright or anti-trust laws. It always seems though that we only ever hear about these violations when big money is involved. Who cares about a violation if it does not hurt a brand or its apparent company regarding future sales? Take for instance a friend of mind, Gavin Riley. Gavin is just like any college student user of the World Wide Web. He has a Facebook, he tweets, but more importantly he uses YouTube.Interestingly, Gavin was the first person that introduced me to YouTube as he was showing me a home video that he was now easily able to post online. However, a video that Gavin made recently pertains to Lessig’s idea of “permission culture.”
Basically, Gavin decided to make a humorous rap music video about the death of Sean Paul.The music video is creative and funny, but that is beside the point. In the video, Gavin is seen in a Wendy’s restaurant uniform behind a Wendy’s restaurant counter in Cockeysville, MD. Obviously, one can make the assumption that he was an employee at that establishment. A few weeks later Gavin received a letter from Wendy’s banning him from their restaurants and firing him in the process.
The video to date has about 7,000 hits, but compared to others videos online that is a relatively low number.Does Wendy’s really think 7,000 people is enough to slander their brand name as a popular fast foot restaurant? Last time I checked, they still seem to be in business. Is it right that Gavin was fired because a small segment of the video contains him in a Wendy’s restaurant as an employee? Only in society today would something like this happen. Think of all the Saturday Night Live skits that mock American brand names and products. There are too many to list! This TV show is seen by millions of people yet they did not face the repercussions that Gavin did. Wendy’s is a private enterprise and they can do as they please, however the company should have asked him to remove the video instead of firing him for a small issue. Lessig is right, “There has never been a time in our history when more of our “culture” was as “owned” as it is now.”
No comments:
Post a Comment