Lying In online Dating Profiles

This article was all about the up and coming phenomenon of online dating. It discusses the ability of users to basically make up whatever they choose about themselves and put it out their for others to view. With the ability to make yourself appear how you wish it can be very tempting and easy for one to lie about their actual physical characteristics and likes. The article talks about a survey which was conducted in order to find out what percentage of users actually lie in their profiles. It turned out that approximately 9 out of every 10 users had lied about at least one thing in their profile. This doesn't come as to much of a surprise as another survey said that 86% of users allready believed that people lie about themselves online. The survey showed that some of the most lied about factors were an individuals height and weight, this is very believable as those are both factors that could immediately attract or turn away one after reading anothers profile.

I found this article to be very interesting as it compares the booming online dating scene, to how reliable it truly is. It makes you think twice about online dating and even about your safety. If it is that easy for someone to lie about their weight they could possibly be completely lying about who they even are. A question this brings up to me is What percentage of users are using pictures of other people and actually pretending to be someone else.

Slater "Illegal Art"

This article by Slater is all about copyright, and copyright infringement. I found it funny how the title illegal art is actually referring to nothing more than funny pictures involving famous cartoon characters and other popular objects. The article discusses how originally copyrights lasted 14 years untill being reviewed for another 14 year extension. This rule has greatly changed and now a days once you get your copyright, you own that for way beyond your time on earth. The rule today is for individual artists they own a copyright for their life plus 70 years, and for large corporations they only have the rights for a measly 95 years. The article continues throughout discussing different copyright situations amongst celebrities and their "Ideas."

I personally find all the hooplah that sorrounds copyrights to be incredibly overdone and even find it selfish of those who seek to sue in order to protect their work. To me music and art are simply meant to be shared with other people. If it wasn't for the people who are "stealing" from this artists, their work would mean nothing as their would be nobody to appreciate it. To me artists are nothing without fans and to go out of their way to sue those who appreciate their work is completely rediculous. I personally believe that copyrights should last simply 3-5 years so that the creator has enough time to share what they've done make some money, and have everyone understand that it was them who created the work. In my mind the hole deal with copyright is completely insane.

Why Thomas Jefferson would love Napster

This article written by Siva Vaidhyanathan is about the original meaning of the term copyright and how it has changed since than. Some 200 years ago the idea of a copyright was created by our founding fathers as a way to create a balance between authors, publishers, and readers. The founding fathers saw copyright as a way to protect an idea that would benefit everyone from the creator to the user. In recent decades this idea has changed a lot and has made an idea somewhat of a property in a sense. This change began in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright act enforced by Bill Clinton and the democratic party.

I found this article to be very interesting as I have always believed and participated in downloading music. I feel it is simply an idea and that it should be free for everyone to access however they can reach it. For musicians to be so greedy and fight for it to become illegal is wrong in my eyes. When asked Why Thomas Jefferson would enjoy Napster I believe he definitely would as it is basically the clear definition of what he originally intended a copyright to be used as.