Saturday, March 22, 2014
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Week 8: Presentations
After watching Hans Rosling's presentation on statistics, I was impressed for various reasons. The presentation itself was interesting and Rosling seemed rather entertaining. Of course, that's not the important part, but rather the presentation itself.
I was rather impressed with the technology used to make this presentation. Usually I'm used to Powerpoint which is very simplistic and there's not a whole lot of fancy things you can do with it. Yet this presentation managed to pull off a whole ton of neat things that you wouldn't see in a Powerpoint presentation. What really impressed me the most was near the end when it had a small animation of all the countries moving from one "box" to the other as the years went by. When I hear the words "presentation" my mind usually goes towards some slide by slide kind of thing. However this was incredibly fluid, and even if it technically was a slide by slide thing, it was smooth and fast enough that it wasn't choppy and was very appealing and interesting to look at.
The presentation also did a great job helping hitting his point home. After all, he could have talked about everything just the same, but having the huge neat presentation behind him helped back up his points, and gave the audience something to look at. And that's something I feel is rather important. While the things were simple, just graphs and circles, it still was visually interesting because they made a point, and weren't disgusting to look at.
I really enjoyed the presentation. Watching everything flow together was really nice and it was one of the better ones I've seen.
I was rather impressed with the technology used to make this presentation. Usually I'm used to Powerpoint which is very simplistic and there's not a whole lot of fancy things you can do with it. Yet this presentation managed to pull off a whole ton of neat things that you wouldn't see in a Powerpoint presentation. What really impressed me the most was near the end when it had a small animation of all the countries moving from one "box" to the other as the years went by. When I hear the words "presentation" my mind usually goes towards some slide by slide kind of thing. However this was incredibly fluid, and even if it technically was a slide by slide thing, it was smooth and fast enough that it wasn't choppy and was very appealing and interesting to look at.
The presentation also did a great job helping hitting his point home. After all, he could have talked about everything just the same, but having the huge neat presentation behind him helped back up his points, and gave the audience something to look at. And that's something I feel is rather important. While the things were simple, just graphs and circles, it still was visually interesting because they made a point, and weren't disgusting to look at.
I really enjoyed the presentation. Watching everything flow together was really nice and it was one of the better ones I've seen.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Week 7- Audio Book Copyright.
The adventures of copyright just doesn't end. A journey that goes with you through your whole life, and probably tries to sue you along the way.
Today's topic takes us to the copyright of Kindle. In specific, the idea over a robot voice reading a book out loud and how that breaks copyright law.
...What?
So while I don't use a Kindle or any kind of E-book, I do know they are meant for reading. A big shocker there I know. As such, I absolutely cannot see the problem with a voice reading the book out loud. Maybe if they were paying some voice actor money to read a book it would be different, but from what I can gather this is a robotic voice just reading a book.
So instead of dissecting this whole thing, I'll leave a question. Let's say you're sitting in your bed sick or something and someone you know comes up and offers to read a book. Any book, I'll even let you decide. They then begin to read it out loud. Now, is this breaking any copyright law? Absolutely not. Books were made for reading and listening, the latter if someone is reading the book out loud. That is fine as it should be. So what is the problem with doing the SAME EXACT thing, except having a robot doing the reading instead of a parent or a friend?
To sum it up, I just can't see how having an audio book would be against copyright. All it is is a robotic voice reading you the book which is the purpose of the whole thing.
The entire case just seems incredibly silly.
Oh, if you read this blog out loud I'm gonna sue you for copyright. Just saying.
Today's topic takes us to the copyright of Kindle. In specific, the idea over a robot voice reading a book out loud and how that breaks copyright law.
...What?
So while I don't use a Kindle or any kind of E-book, I do know they are meant for reading. A big shocker there I know. As such, I absolutely cannot see the problem with a voice reading the book out loud. Maybe if they were paying some voice actor money to read a book it would be different, but from what I can gather this is a robotic voice just reading a book.
So instead of dissecting this whole thing, I'll leave a question. Let's say you're sitting in your bed sick or something and someone you know comes up and offers to read a book. Any book, I'll even let you decide. They then begin to read it out loud. Now, is this breaking any copyright law? Absolutely not. Books were made for reading and listening, the latter if someone is reading the book out loud. That is fine as it should be. So what is the problem with doing the SAME EXACT thing, except having a robot doing the reading instead of a parent or a friend?
To sum it up, I just can't see how having an audio book would be against copyright. All it is is a robotic voice reading you the book which is the purpose of the whole thing.
The entire case just seems incredibly silly.
Oh, if you read this blog out loud I'm gonna sue you for copyright. Just saying.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Week 6- The Depths of Plagiarism
...These titles don't make a lot of sense.
I was a tad surprised to hear that the rather infamous "Hope" picture of Obama had copyright surrounding it, as I was convinced it was an actual ad campaign by Obama himself. So hearing the fact that not only did some random guy make it, but that there is attempted legal action against it was a bit of a shock.
So after doing some research on the whole business, I find the fact that AP seems rather keen on taking Fairey and his poster down. There's just a few things that seem rather odd in the whole deal.
I do have to see Fairey probably should have given some credit to Garcia, the man who took the photo in the first place. But no only was the edit not used at all to make a profit, it was for politics alone, but Garcia has stated he doesn't mind his photo was altered into the well known poster. The real drama here is coming from AP, the company that hired Garcia to take the photo of Obama in the first place. This leads us to a whole situation of who owns the photo in the first place.
While the photo was used by AP and they tasked Garcia to take the photo, it still is Garcia's photo at the end of the day. And it feels like he should have more say than the company that merely published the picture. If Garcia was upset his picture was used, this would be an entirely different story. But judging off the fact that he was fine, I believe he should have more say than AP in this situation. And in that case, that leaves Fairey more in the right side of things. As I said, credit would have been nice and would have probably made this situation a lot cleaner, but judging by Garcia's reaction and the original purpose of the picture, I believe it should be fine and not count as direct plagiarism.
I was a tad surprised to hear that the rather infamous "Hope" picture of Obama had copyright surrounding it, as I was convinced it was an actual ad campaign by Obama himself. So hearing the fact that not only did some random guy make it, but that there is attempted legal action against it was a bit of a shock.
So after doing some research on the whole business, I find the fact that AP seems rather keen on taking Fairey and his poster down. There's just a few things that seem rather odd in the whole deal.
I do have to see Fairey probably should have given some credit to Garcia, the man who took the photo in the first place. But no only was the edit not used at all to make a profit, it was for politics alone, but Garcia has stated he doesn't mind his photo was altered into the well known poster. The real drama here is coming from AP, the company that hired Garcia to take the photo of Obama in the first place. This leads us to a whole situation of who owns the photo in the first place.
While the photo was used by AP and they tasked Garcia to take the photo, it still is Garcia's photo at the end of the day. And it feels like he should have more say than the company that merely published the picture. If Garcia was upset his picture was used, this would be an entirely different story. But judging off the fact that he was fine, I believe he should have more say than AP in this situation. And in that case, that leaves Fairey more in the right side of things. As I said, credit would have been nice and would have probably made this situation a lot cleaner, but judging by Garcia's reaction and the original purpose of the picture, I believe it should be fine and not count as direct plagiarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)