Course blog for CSP 11 (Fall 2012) @ Occidental College

Author Archives: copywriter500

A project that my friends did for their ap calc final. 


Antoine Dodson first burst into the media spotlight after an interview went viral on YouTube. Under bizarre circumstances, a man had climbed through his sister’s window and had crept into bed with her. Luckily, she was able to call for help, with Antoine coming immediately to her aid. The man got away, but was later caught by police. After the incident, video of Antoine threatening her stalker went viral. Soon after, a musical remix was created using video excerpts from the interview.

 

            The musical remix of the interview is completely transformative, differing entirely from the original content. While the original video was meant to inform the public of important events in the area, the remix is meant completely as entertainment. The remix takes an entirely different approach on the content, looking at it in a less serious light and in more of a joking and light-hearted manner. In this way, the remix in no way conveys the same meaning or tone that the original video portrays. Although the remix is actually about a minute longer than the original interview, the actual content of the interview is used quite sparingly, with lines being reused multiple times. Do

 

            Because the interview and the musical remix are so different, the remix in no way detracts from the viewership of the interview. While both the interview and the musical remix tell the same story, the remix does it in such a way that anybody looking for information would not rely on it.

 

            If anything, the remix helped in finding the attacker by spreading awareness. This means that the remix caused no harm to anyone involved. Because of all these things, it is safe to say that the musical remix involving the interview of Antoine Dodson falls under fair use. 

Work Cited

Bed Intruder Song. Youtube, Apr 2012. Sun 30 Sept. 2012

Augderheide, Patricia and Jaszi, Peter. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. Print.


While William Patry’s article on “How the Copyright Wars Are Being fought and Why” and Southpark’s espisode “HUMANCENTiPAD” may differ in more than a few ways, the two pieces of work coincide on one idea; businesses have overstepped. Both Trey Parker, South Park’s primary director, and William Patry use their mediums to explain how modern day companies are letting the danger of copyrighting interfere with their customer relations.

Patry, who dwells much more deeply into the subject, is quick to point out that the fault is not entirely the businesses. As he explains, “Many businesses understandable worry about shifting from a declining volume but still profitable product to a newer product that may or may not become capable of generating substantial revenues.”(Patry, 2) It is understandable that companies want their product, and product revenue, to be protected. As the soul producer of that product, it is their right to profit for their good. However, it is also important that the company maintains a good relationship with the customer, meaning that their product rules cannot go too far. Parker shows us an extreme example of a company’s rules going to far in his episode “HUMANCENTiPAD”.

One company that I believe has gone too far through their terms and conditions is Apple. When reading through the iTunes terms and conditions, it is obvious that the company is trying to leach as much money as possible out of their customers. By first ensuring that no one will be able to share libraries by saying that “An Associated Device can be associated with only one Account at any given time”(Apple), Apple then drops the hammer by stating that “You may switch an Associated Device to a different Account only once every 90 days.”(Apple) This final rule is what puts Apple over the edge. It is greedy and overreaching of them to expect that customers will not share music. Driven by their obsession for money, Apple, like a great many more companies, have begun to drive their customers away.

While Parker’s HUMANCENTiPAD episode is obviously an extremity, it hits many key points. Parker points out, through vulgar examples, that companies are able to hid powerful restrictions in their terms and conditions, limiting what their customers might do. This can be seen through Apple, as they control how customers can share their music. HUMANCENTiPAD also shows how extreme copyright rules can create and/or heighten the public’s distaste towards a company. Because of this, modern day companies walk a delicate line between being profitable and maintaining public satisfaction. Both are key components to a company’s success, and must be kept at the highest level. HUMANCENTiPAD, along with Patry’s article, works as a warning to the CEOS of our time, showing what can happen if copyright terms and conditions become too overreaching.

Works Cited

 

“HUMAN CENTiPAD.” South Park. Dir. Trey Parker. Comedy Central. 27 April 2011.

Television. 8 September 2012.

 

Patry, William. Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2009. Print.

 

“Terms and Conditions.” iTunes Store Terms and Conditions. Apple, 23 May 2012. Web. 09 Sept. 2012 http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html.