Personal Stance on Copyright

Copyright was developed in order to protect an originators creative work, and grants that creator exclusive rights to distribution. Creators of original works are also given the right to receive profit for their work, if they choose. A great benefit from the copyright law is that creator's are able to be protect by these copyright laws for the extent of their lifetime, plus seventy years after their death.


My Stance on Copyright

I believe that copyright is a great law to have, especially for the creators of a work. Creators are able to take credit for their work and gain all of it's benefits. However today, violation of this law happens more often than some would think. For example, when one illegally downloads an artists music, meaning they have not purchased it, they are violating those artists rights. Also, one that edits an artist work and attempt to sell it as their own is a violation of the copyright law. Therefore, anytime a person takes the work of another and attempts to produce it as their own, they are again violating the copyright law. Sites such as Creative Commons allow people to use licensed  pictures to copy, distribute, and make uses of their work as long as the user does not use the content commercially and try to gain profit using the work. The copyright law is a good thing in my opinion, but it is not always honored as there are many violations of the copyright today.

Cultivation Theory: The Mean World Syndrome

George Gerbner offers a very thought-provoking explanation as to how the media impacts the public's views on violence. In The Mean World Syndrome Preview, Gerbner relates today's cultural environment to a fish swimming in water, meaning that the people have become so adapted to watching the violence seen in the media, that they know nothing else. Many that have tried to develop an explanation for today's violence, have blamed the media for creating the idea that violence is common for people to perform and that it is acceptable to practice; however Gerbner states that the media is actually to be blamed for making the people more fearful that this violence will be done to them, rather than actually performing the act of violence. The public see's all of this violence happening in today's media, and they are fearful for themselves and their families that this violence may quite possibly happen to them. An interesting statistic brought forth in this video, is that 2/3 of those who say that crime is a very serious problem in today's society, are actually gaining their news from the television media.



Does violence on the media impact the public in a negative way?

I believe that the majority of violence in the media does have a negative influence on today's public. I also believe that the public is able to choose how they let the media's violence affect them. For example, the public may use the media's violence as pure entertainment and never act upon it, but still leave fear for these possible actions by others. Others may use media violence as a confirmation that this violence is acceptable to reenact. 

Are there ways that you can think consuming media violence could have a positive impact on people?

The only positive impact that I believe that violence could have on the public is that people become more aware of this violence and they are able to protect themselves in different ways; Whether it be self-defense, having safety equipment and plans, or knowing which places are unsafe to enter during certain times. People can never truly predict the actions that others may do, so even being prepared may not always help, however it eases the mind of the public who are negatively exposed to such a violent world. 

Do you agree with Gerbner's explanation for why there is so much violence on television, that the reason isn't simply because that is what the public wants to consume? 

I do agree with Gerbner that the explanation for why there is so much violence on television isn't simply because that is what the public wants to consume, but is because of the major media corporations who specifically target the people to sell. According to The Mean World Syndrome, selling to the public is decided by large private corporations and they control what travels well in the global market, which they use a formula based on what succeeds in the media market. "Put in more action and cut out the complicated solutions" is the formula that the major corporations use because it speaks to every person across the nation. Action and violence needs no translation among different countries, because it is a visual understanding amongst all people. Therefore, the public does not control the amount of violence in the media, what they can control however is how much they choose to watch this violence and what they choose to do with this violent knowledge.