Joho the Blog
|
|
|
May 28, 2006
When I was about five years old, Miss Francis of Ding Dong School showed a drawing I'd made of a fawn, among the set of drawings children submitted every day. I'd made that drawing by tracing a picture on the show Winky Dink — a show that assumed you'd bought their protective plastic coversheet for your TV screen so you could draw right on it. My earliest media lesson therefore: If you want to violate copyright, first you have to copy right. Now vee may perhaps to begin? [Tags: tv copyright]Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 28, 2006 08:27 AM
|
Comments
Very good - funny and profoundly true. Because copying right, or copying just-not-quite-right, is no longer difficult or expensive and is in many cases even trivially easy, it puts in question the matters of authority, authorship, accuracy and so on which are traditionally associated with copyright.
Posted by: adam | May 28, 2006 12:38 PM
Thanks for reminding mey of the name of the show. I too got the kit for drawing on the screen. I alas did not get my work shown on Ding Dong School.
Posted by: jr | June 1, 2006 01:43 PM
The June 9, [annenberg] Hyperlinking in Web 2.0 piece contains this odd use of the word "fact" in a reply to a remark of Jimmy Wikipedia Wales by Martin NYT Nisenholtz: "We have over 600 editors because we're trying to get at the best possible facts." Martin's comment apparently refers to the NYT, which, I would imagine, does not regard facts as ordered by quality, but rather either as facts or not facts. At least, I conjecture that is what they would hire their "fact checkers" to determine. Ironically at this date, Wikipedia's definition of "fact" has the self-referential {{disputed}} tag whose English label is "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."
If this didn't pull your chain from your profession of origin, I don't know what would...Bob
Posted by: Bob Morris | June 10, 2006 11:48 PM