I just downloaded every single Metallica album.

While sitting in class this past thursday all I could really think was "where do I even start with copyright infringement?" Being a musician this hits close to home, but, I'm all for it.

When Copyright is defined as "an exclusive right," it just doesn't sound right. An idea on an object (for example a song on a CD) is a complex thing to get credit for, much less sell. When the CD is sold, whatever is on it is sold as well. BUT, according to John Feather and copyright laws, "ownership of the object does not confer ownership of the content." Simply put, just because someone buys the CD does not mean they own the rights to song. This is simple, but the use of the song other than personal enjoyment can be complicated. If Jane goes to buy something, and hands over the proper amount of money for it, doesn't she get ownership? Is Jane allowed to learn songs that are recorded on the CD that she bought? Yes she is. Can she mangle the song on the CD to represent her view of the world/ideas in her head? Technically, she can, but lawfully... well, lets look at a scenario: Lets say Jane records said song and makes some money off of it. However, if Jane's song sounds too much like the song that inspired her to pick up a guitar in the first place, well then, Jane will most likely have legal action levied against her. That inspirational song is owned by someone. In today's age, it is owned by many people. Now, being inspired begets a lawsuit.

If something is directly stolen - the CD that Jane bought for example - then it is understandable that charges can be pressed. But the idea? the song itself? Songs, music, lyrics, are all expressions of a writer. Ideas put down on paper or played on an instrument. The definition of an idea is "A concept or mental impression/A suggestion as to a possible course of action/an opinion or belief/a feeling that something is possible or probable." Suggestions, mental ideas, opinions, beliefs, and feelings are not tangible things. Therefore ideas are not physical, however, they can become a reality. When ideas become a reality - the manifestation of a song, for example - the only physical representation of that song is sheet music and the medium of recording (i.e. vinyl, CD, cassette tape, 8-track). Sound can't be grabbed, but it can be made. Ideas can be expressed, but not owned.

But can ideas be credited? Is there a difference between ownership and credit? Its a vast, grey cloudy plane of the unknown. Granted, Ideas can't be owned but, for example, a song can have an author, and that author can have credit for making it. Say Bob writes a song. Then Jim takes that exact same song and plays it note-for-note and claims it to be hi own song. That is unfair. But if Jim acknowledges that the song was originally Bob's or if Jim alters the song to make his own version of it, then that should be fair game.

All these fine lines and shades of grey are confusing. I honestly don't know where to go from here. If i think of anything else to say, I'll post before monday, but for the mean-time I'm going to pirate some movies.

EDIT: Lars Ulrich is a bitch.

Thirteen (hundredmilllionthousdand) ways of looking at a Blackbird.

This website is the perfect example of how literature is seen and objectified by a certain individual. It is also a perfect example of how the interpreter’s view can reach a vast, wide audience by simply making a website. The poem was written in 1917 but due to the Internet it can now be interpreted, translated, and visualized. So although the poem is very abstract in nature, it’s availability on the internet makes it easy to garner individual views as to the meaning of the poem. It also allows those views to be published and seen by millions as well.

Thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird is a poem written by Wallace Stevens that talks about, obviously, a blackbird. It is slightly abstract in that it jumps from specific images and ideas to broad, general notions and depictions – “Among twenty snowy mountains/ the only moving thing/ was the eye of the blackbird.” This first verse gives an image of large, sweeping mountains, then it zooms in on a very small, miniscule dot of a blackbird’s eye. This is the general feel of the poem. It gives a vivid, wide description, of a landscape or person and soon delves into a mind or focuses in on an object usually within a stanza. The motion of this poem makes the reader think, and stretch their minds to figure out what exactly it is that Stevens is trying to say. Some of the imagery is obvious but the movement between these images is what keeps the poem in an ambivalent state.

For example, stanza four is stated as such: “A man and woman are one/A man and a woman and a blackbird are one.” The first part is easy to visualize. But throw in a blackbird in the second phrase and that third party throws off the previous phrase by adding an element that is out of place. A man and a woman are a natural pair. The one needs the other to procreate, so naturally, that pairing is easy to imagine. However, the thought of the blackbird in that equation does not naturally compute. Not because it doesn’t fit into the idea of procreation but because it isn’t the first thing that is thought of when a man and a woman are associated together. Man, woman, blackbird isn’t a common inclination, so by putting the image of a blackbird next to the Adam and Eve image makes the reader stretch his or her mind to see if and how all three can fit together. Therefore, the abstractedness of this poem as illustrated by the previously mentioned verse ultimately makes it objective to the reader. The phrases are general enough to where anyone can read them and obtain an image in their minds, but each reader will have a different image. The scenes portrayed in the poem are general, and specific at the same time, but still oddly linked together. It then lies upon the reader to see how it all connects. This is where the website comes into play, and the portrayal of the poem as seen by the web master.

The person who designed the website notes that

“The idea for this version of Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird came to me a couple of years ago, when I was working on my own one Saturday and there was a heavy fall of snow. In the middle of the afternoon, whilst waiting for the kettle to boil for my umpteenth cup of coffee, I happened to glance out of the window. In the carpark outside grows a crab-apple tree, which bears very bright red fruit in winter, and because of the snow the apples were looking particularly vivid. On one branch of the tree perched a blackbird - a startling contrast with both the white snow and the red fruit. Pretentious soul that I am, I was immediately reminded of Wallace Stevens' poem, and almost as immediately it occurred to me that the crab-apple tree would make an excellent interface for a new media version, with the bright red apples acting as buttons to call up the different sections.”

He specifically mentions a “new media version” of the poem meaning that he had

thought of a new way to display the poem. His version is interactive – the crab apples on the tree can be clicked, and each stanza can be viewed independently of each other – and this in itself creates a whole new way of looking at the poem. When each stanza is taken out of context with the rest of poem, the connotations and undertones of the poem can change quite drastically. For example, verse two and verse four are similar in that they relate three different things. Verse two relates the mind of the author to the three minds of three blackbirds. Verse four relates a man, a woman and a blackbird. Yet if these two were taken out of the context of the poem, they would most likely mean something entirely different on their own. Verse two is contemplating the likeness of his mind with that of the blackbirds. If it were possible to read and view this on its own – which it is – the poem could be thought of as the author trying to relate to the blackbird. But verse four could be seen as the author trying to relate the blackbird to humanity and not just his mind. Both verses could mean different things altogether, especially when viewed with graphics and in a non-linear fashion. This is the beauty of technology and interactive media. Poems that were written almost one hundred years ago can still have new meaning and a different voice.

This website has become a perfect example of how new mediums can have an impact on how we view and read literature. It is not just the pretty pictures that accompany the text that makes it different; it is the way in which the content is literally accessed and displayed that makes the reader interpret the prose in a different way. In a similar fashion to the way the printing press spread knowledge, the Internet is now able to spread not just knowledge but interpretation as well. And not just from scholars and learned people, but from individuals sitting at a computer with something to say.

Preaching to a deaf choir

In writing about writing, Trihemius sounds like he is reciting a sermon, but his stipulations, like "Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed books are often deficient in spelling an appearance" are not supported with any proof. Its just a statement with hopes of sounding convincing in order to garner support.

Johannes Trithemius (JT we'll call him for short), makes a point: that to write is to be closer to God; as a matter of fact, he states that "The scribe, distinguished by his devotion, is a herald of God." A "herald," as define by Webster, is "an official messenger bringing news." If these scribes are "official messengers" then they have to have some affiliation with the "office" that they come from. If that office is "God" then they are in direct communication with Him/Her/It, and bring his good news. By copying other books. Over and over again. However this point is flawed simply due to his insinuations and lack of support for what he states.

Obviously, there is a problem here. Heralds, first off, are supposed to travel with news. They are messengers, and messengers move from one place to another. The physical locale of these monks prohibits this action somewhat. If they are locked in cells for hours upon hours, there is no going to and from and delivering news. There is simply copying.

Secondly, monks are responsible for keeping libraries, yes, but aren't they responsible for getting the Word (as in the Bible) out there as well? Being in a room copying a book prevents this from really taking place. I know that somewhere in the Bible there is a passage saying something along the lines of "proclaim the Lord's name so that all nations may hear it." Or something like that. If a monk is supposed to be hidden away, how then can he do this if he is so devout? They are supposed to followers of Jesus, who walked for miles around the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, teaching and preaching, but instead JT insists on keeping hands busy with a recluse-like lifestyle to prevent any wrong from happening.

Experiences make humans grow and understand what is going on around them. That is what Jesus did - the one who these monks are supposed to follow - yet they do the exact opposite. Does it make sense? Not really.