Is Originality Dead?

Seeing one of my favourite TV shows from the UK, BBC's modern rendition of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, in Maclean's magazine got me very excited. The show has won several awards and is gaining mass audiences. How often do you see British television in the mainstream North American media? That is why I got really excited to see it in Maclean's, because it is truly proof of the gaining popularity this current 6 episode mini-series is getting. It is not surprising, then, that other television corporations are eager to ride on the coattails of Sherlock's success. A very prominent example is CBS's upcoming show, Elementary, which will also feature a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, except in New York rather than London. There is already a lot of spite among the Sherlock fans towards Elementary, after the co-creators of Sherlock consulted the creators of Elementary saying they did not want them to continue because they were the original creators of the modern-day Sherlock Holmes idea. It is instances like these that raise the question - is originality dead? Is there literally no unique ideas out there, or has the media taught us to take the easy route and rely on the success of others? It seems to be making television companies money anyhow, so why make the effort of being original?

Elementary Vs. Sherlock 

"It's Not For Women"

I remember a while ago seeing Dr. Pepper being advertised in a sort of satire action film commercial. It advertised the drink as being "manly", and suggested that action films are strictly for men and women's interests are strictly to romantic comedies. This commercial actually made me very angry. I am a fan of superhero movies, and I am sick of society telling me I should prefer Nicholas Sparks films. When my dad and brother were planning to go see The Avengers, my dad was surprised when I said I wanted to go see it too. Why? Because commercials like this Dr. Pepper ad are continually reinforcing gender segregation. I can't believe that it is the 21st century and the media is still telling us how we are expected to act because of a biological difference. I also can't believe that something as simple as watching an action movie or drinking a Dr. Pepper is considered defying the media's expectations for me as a girl.

Doctor Pepper commercial labelled "It's Not For Women"

Disclaimer: Sorry Ben! I didn't realize you had already written an entry on this commercial.

Streaming - Not the Threat Music Corporations Make It Out to Be

When we first started talking about streaming's role in copyright infringement in class, I was pretty on the fence about my opinions on whether or not it was a major threat to the future of the music industry. Now, after introducing myself to streaming on CBC Music and browsing such a large streaming site, I have begun to lean towards the idea that streaming music is more helpful than hurtful to music corporations. For one thing, a common factor I've noticed on CBC Music is that no albums released in the last couple months are available for streaming. It's not like every song by every band you like is available to listen for free--if you really like a band and want to listen to its newest album, you cannot stream it. Fans who want to listen to the music immediately have the choice of buying it and supporting the artist or illegally downloading it for free. Flash is also required to stream music, at least from CBC. So even if I was willing to use up my data on my iPhone to stream music on the bus or walking or whenever I listen to music, I wouldn’t be able to stream the music because Flash is not compatible with my iPhone. These factors make streaming inconvenient compared to buying or downloading the .mp3 file, and fans will always pay money for music made by an artist they wish to support. Not only do consumers realize the convenience of owning the music, but streaming is a great opportunity to introduce music to an audience that would never have been introduced to it in the first place. To me, streaming acts more like an advertising tool than a replacement for paid-for music.

YouTube - A Copyright Violator or Advertising Medium?

Under YouTube's slogan, "Broadcast Yourself", there should be fine print reading "as long as it's within the boundaries that record labels have limited your creative expression to”. YouTube is at the mercy of any corporation that does not want their content shared worldwide, which means every single of the millions of videos uploaded to YouTube must have their audio carefully scanned and checked to make sure it does not belong to any of the corporations that claim their copyrighted material over YouTube.  As soon as a video violates that copyright law, even if it’s just a kid making a harmless cover in their bedroom, it is deleted out of existence, no question. However, corporations have begun to become smarter about their approach to abolishing copyright on video sharing sites such as YouTube. They have begun to realize that by deleting people’s videos they are only creating enemies with their consumers, and that when a video is uploaded to YouTube, no profit is being made by the creator. In essence, rather than stealing their material, YouTube upload-ers are actually becoming an increasing means of advertisement. Many record labels, when they detect their copyrighted material being used in a video, will instead put an advertisement for the song directly beneath the video rather than deleting it altogether. I know that I personally have been introduced to a lot of music because of this new advertising method, and I’m sure a lot of other consumers have as well. It isn’t just the music industry taking advantage of YouTube as an advertising source. Corporations like CBS, BBC, and VEVO have their own YouTube channels and upload their own choice content. NBC even uploaded the entire pilot episode of Smash to YouTube as a way of introducing the show. This revolutionary method of using YouTube as an advertising medium will undoubtedly change the way in which the marketing world works.