After reading through the riveting Powerpoint Presentation from George Mason University’s  copyright officer I was not really surprised by any of the content.  It is not secret that Copyright is a grey area.  While the rules try their best to make it black and white, there are some subject aspects such as the “Fair Use” policy and the fact that it could be used for educational and research purposes pending proper citation.  I understand the purpose of copyright in our society and how it can solve some pretty substantial disputes, but I also find it unnecessary to be used to the extent that it is used.  In some cases, people seem as though they want to sue people because they want to get money out of it.  Money is a huge motivator for a lot of people.  I feel as though some people, especially creative people, are not motivator but monetary factors.  They could be infringing copyright

As for the website ArchiveTeam, I see nothing wrong with it.  I actually found the website really interesting.  I can understand where some people would want to examine the legality and could possibly make an argument for copyright.  I think that the creators of this website are just honestly trying to preserve websites and informer their readers on common practices of larger websites that may effect them.

All of the content that I looked at was credited to the original creators.  The makers of the website would give a brief introduction to the importance of the website, and the reason for archiving it (all of which, is their own personal content) and then it would link to show you examples of the site.

If the website does not exist, what do you care if someone is trying to show off your former work?  I think that websites and companies should be thrilled that there is a website like the ArchiveTeam to keep their hardwork alive.

In terms of the legality, Im sure that there were some long and hard fought court battles around the interpretation of copyright laws, but I believe that the creators of this site made all of the correct ethical decisions.  They give credit to the original creators and are almost honoring their work in a sense.  I think the only ethical breach you could argue is the fact that the website has a very striking resemblance to wikipedia, but it is not alone in that breach.

I thought that the video “The amen break” was really informative and interesting.  It took something that many of us are familiar with and have heard many times before, but didn’t know the story behind its origination.  If it wasn’t for the fact that this was a very interesting topic, than this video would have been very painful to watch.   I found it difficult to stay intrigued because the narrator was very monotone and used a lot of uncommon words in his speech.
I also believe that this topic is a lot more interesting to someone that is more educated in music terminology and the beats.  I enjoy informative videos like this that also provide visual representations alongside of the song.  One of those examples is a video that explains how the electoral college works.  The video is produced by CGP Grey and is below

What I enjoy better about the electoral college video is the simple addition of pictures and a little bit more excitement in the narrators both.

As the video moves on to talk about copyright laws, I thought that the narrator brought up a great point.  If you asked anyone than they could clearly tell you that The Winston’s were responsible for the creation of that music.  Unfortunately, because it was reused and copyrighted by a corporation there was legal battles for who was the true “owner” of the amen break.  To be completely, that entire section confused the heck out of me and I had to re-listen to it a few times.  Im conflicted on this entire issue because I can see all sides of the story.  I think that the original artists are entitled to the success of the creation, but I also enjoy listening to songs that have sampling in them.  One of my favorite artist is Kanye West, and Kanye is known for how often he uses sampling in his songs.  I think that there should be a way that would give artist access to samples without having to complicate everything.  Of course the original artist should be given a certain amount of credit for the inclusion of their song, but let’s be honest, it is usually a minor part of the song.  If anything, I would take it is a compliment that your music was so good that someone else wanted to use it!