The Big Finale – Storify : Gay and Proud

Here’s a link to my Storify.. as the title says, Gay and Proud.. My topic from the start of this blog has been LGBTQ equality. This Storify has a lot of different elements in it, looking at the positive sides and the ground the LGBTQ equality has made for the better .. but unfortunately there’s still a long way that our society has to come reach better forms of LGBTQ equality so I’ve included some ways in which certain parts of the world have taken steps back and tried to eliminate equality for LGBTQ people. This is a topic I feel so strongly about, not only because I myself am gay .. but I’m seen the negative sides to so many LGBTQ people who have grown up being bullied, harassed, beaten up , discriminated against, their rights stolen and even people kicked out of their homes and disowned by their families all because of something as small as their sexual orientation. Someone’s sexual orientation doesn’t affect anyone other then themselves, so leave there sexual orientation out of the equation and treat them like any other heterosexual human being is treated. I know that I’m only one person and the things I write and say can’t change everything, but if I raised some questions to the heteor-normative way of thinking and had people reconsider their views on LGBTQ, then I’m happy.. any step forward is better than a step back!
Thanks for all the love and support!
MarMAr xo
the link below will take you to my storify!

Final Summation : Online Journalism

Can’t believe the end has come, I feel like such a tech-saavy “produser” now because of this class!

I’ll start off this summation based off some of the comments I received off my initial post. One of the main points I had talked about was how everything’s moved online, especially in terms of voting and how in my eyes older generation’s don’t have access like the younger people do. I based my justification off my own experiences and how my mother doesn’t even know how to turn a computer on, let alone try to use one. Though Kathy ( explained how she thought that I was wrong, and that the older generation does infact use online resources, and how her mother has gone out and ensured that she can get up to speed with online technology and mastering the WWW.  Based off our different experiences, I think that it’s hard to come up with an exact answer as to if moving everything online is good or bad for the population, regardless of age.

In terms of online journalism and what the WWW has done for it, people agree with the fact that online journalism can be detrimental. “The impact of social media on the definition of authority is not just affecting the profession of journalism, but also the fields of academic knowledge and medicine (Hermida, 2012, p.559)”. I think that this point is absolutely true, with the amount of bogus stuff that surfaces the internet now a days it’s hard to validate what’s true an what’s not. It’s all about money, and what people will do, say, create in order to get hits on their pages and to make more money from the advertisements they post on their pages. For example for my podcast I did it on how Russia started this new lawing banning Gay Propaganda, some journalist could have easily made this post, or could have had multiple different sites, and posted variations of the article he created so it would look as though there’s more than one source. I do not believe that this is the actual case, but it very could be. I dont know the author personally, I can’t call him up, and I don’t know anyone in Russia to hear if it’s actually as bad as the articles say it is.

Even within another article the author explains that “we are likely to sleep through the transition from freedom into control (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2003, p.4)”. This meaning that there are rules and restrictions set on cyberspace, some of which we don’t even know exist, but they do, the whole point of these constraints is to try to limit what people can say on the internet and who they can interact with. So many people posting things think that they have complete freedom to do and say whatever they want, to whoever and whenever, but many court cases will show that someone’s always watching and always reading, and just because you’re under anonymity doesn’t mean you’ll get away with falsified articles and threatening emails. More and more people are finally beginning to get caught, and their faces are in the public eye.. Maybe the fact that these people are becoming criminalized and their acts are being broadcasted, that people will start to smarten up and keep the journalism for the professionals.

Take Care Everyone,
MarMar xo

Welcome to the Realm of Online Journalism

Hello my little Minions!

If you’ve never watch despicable Me then disregard the Minions part! Cannot believe this is the last initial blog I’ll be writing!!! So close to the end, who would have ever thought I actually liked to blogged! Definitely have learned a lot through this course, more than I ever thought I would have! Though I cannot wait for my summer to FINALLY begin :D!

Before the big ol World Wide Web came to be, to we were limited to the way that we could spread the word and get our voices heard and the facts known. We had the word of mouth, the papers, the magazines, we could mail things to get what we wanted further, but all of that took time. To individual send out mail with your article in it, or to have to out and go to publishing companies to try to get your articles published, but over the past several years things have drastically for the people in the Journalism field, for me I see it as positive changes and has made their jobs easier, though I’m sure there’s some journalists out there who think that the WWW has ruined what Journalism is all about.

Within the first part of Henry Jenkins and David Thorburns article The Digital Revolution, the informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy he talks about the United States and how many states had been moving their candidacies and voting to online polls and websites early in 2000. By moving the candidacies online, the candidates were able to post much more than they ever could before about their campaigns and other information, most of it being the stuff the public never had access to such as government documents. To me it sounds all fine and dandy, maybe if it was in today’s day and age.. but 13 years ago I don’t think it was a good idea. Although it was said that “the emergence of home computers…might strengthen democratic culture, enabling citizens and grassroots organization to circulate their ideas more widely than ever before (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2013 p. 5)”, which is absolutely true and its what has happened now.. But politics has always generalized more to the older population, the tax payers and the retired people who follow the debates and have been around long enough to know what’s good for the country & economy and what’s not. But it’s the older people who don’t have access or aren’t up to speed on the growing speed of the WWW, Jenkins and Thorbun went on to say that “fifty percent of Internet users under the age of thirty said the Net had affected their vote, a finding that suggests a generational shift in political culture (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2013 p. 1)”. Moving politics online definitely has it’s positives and benefits, I think in today’s society it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to make online voting possible, with the chaotic lives that many people live, getting to a voting station isn’t always possible, but with technology available in the palm of someone’s hand, and the accessibility to just click a couple of buttons, type in some info and be able to vote, than maybe there would be an influx of people voting. Though I don’t think right now, that all politics should be moved online .. There are still a lot the “baby boomers” and older generation still kicking around, following politics the “old fashion” way by following whats put on TV and what’s distributed in the good ol daily paper and the political magazines. I know for example, my mother has no idea how to even turn on a computer let alone surf the WWW and try to find credible information, and she has no desire to try to start learning now at her age, it’s just too advanced and she’s perfectly content with following the news and everything else without the use of WWW, and that’s the same mentality for a lot of the older generation.

Now including the topic of politics and all else that has moved to the WWW, the biggest problem for me is finding information that is credible, that is true and that has sources to back it up. There’s plenty of news articles that have an author and have a date and location of where it was published, and often times even has the author’s email attached, but who’s to say that holds any value? I could change my name to the name of a credible author, and make up some bogus email, and this really interesting article full of lies, and have millions of people believe it within a couple of hours of being released on the web! Even the politicians believe what they read on the WWW, during a political debate between Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton “both candidates strongly opposed pending legislation that would tax e-mail to provide financial support for the federal postal service (Jenkins & Thorburn, 2013 p.3), only to later find out that the “so-called bill” was nothing but a hoax released on the WWW, yet both politicians had believed it to be true. Now with all the different forms of social media such as things like Twitter and Facebook, factual information is much harder to come by. Journalism and journalists have always held their profession to “determine the truth, accuracy or validity of news events, establishing jurisdiction over the ability to objectively parse reality to claim a special kind of authority and status (Hermida, 2012 p.659)”. And now with these social media sites, news is upload and spread like wildfire all within a couple short sentences and a click of a button, no real factual information is needed for the majority of people to believe whatever is being written, of course there are some who will further look into what is being said, for example if someone were to post an update on Facebook about lets say Brock University Students having to pay double their tuition this year if the student is gay, I wouldn’t believe it first hand, I’d look into it further to find out where the source came from and whether or not there’s more information on it. But so many of us are caught up in the hustle and bustle of social media sites, that they’ll read something, believe it first hand, and re-post and then it takes off from there. I feel bad for the people who have or are going to school for journalism, their career is slowly being taken over by the public, now rather “the journalists today are just some of the many voices in public communication (Hermida, 2012 p. 666)”.

In conclusion , there are some positive to the online realm of journalism, the fact that news can travel faster than ever before, and journalists don’t need to wait months to try to get their article published into their favourite journal or magazine to try to get recognized, all they need is a good handle on social media and publishing things that the online readers want and like to read! Unfortunately most of what people re-post and like to read, is falsified information to try to get people attracted to the articles and to try to get as many readers as possible. I’m always in this love-hate relationship with the WWW when it comes to any form of news or finding valuable, credible information anymore.


MarMar ❤ xo


Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn. Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. in Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn eds. (2003). Democracy and New Media. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. p1-17. NOTE: this link takes you to the entire book (online). You only need to read the introduction.

Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verificationJournalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.

Summary – Copyright or copywrong?

Hello again !

Here is my blog summarizing my prior copyright law post! I got some great comments, and read some awesome blogs; all those made my mind spin and see things from a different perspective!

Where to start, well what recollects in my mind first, was how I had made the suggestion that maybe if there was a site that gave you a deal like $30 dollars a month for 100 songs, $20 for 50 and then Kathy replied relating that to an all you can eat buffet. Which is a great theory, about how you go to an all you can eat buffet, sometimes you get your money’s worth, and sometimes you do not! So then I was thinking while reading Tainted Love’s blog, she mentioned how sites have come out to help pirating when it comes to movies, which is Netflix, which I forgot about! However, that is such a great idea, how or why hasn’t a site been created where for a low price you have access to cds, and artists music! What is so different about Netflix doing it for movies and a site starting up the same idea but for music! Netflix is doing pretty well, and is a great idea and for the low price that it offers, it’s cheaper then any buffet I’d go to, I think you’d be guaranteed to get your money worth, especially by having it available on the TV, you could turn on your albums while your cleaning your house. Hmm, just an idea sparked by some fellow bloggers!

Now according to an interesting article A&G Analysis of Napster, the main issue as to why Napster got in so much trouble, was because “the use of the music is not “transformative,” and the users of Napster stood to gain a “commercial” benefit (Crew, 2011 p.5). This article really helped to further some terminology and further my knowledge of what copyright is and how it is broken. And from all the sources I’ve been reading, it’s perfectly okay to remix material from artists, but to take the song in full without paying for it is seen as illegal. At first, I was kind of against remixing, because I saw remixing and taking music to be more or less the same thing, but through the readings, I see it a bit differently. Through Lessig’s discussion he talks about “the RW (right-write) and RO (read only), and how our world’s been created with the RW notion, and if songs weren’t remixed and material not remixed, then where would the evolution of new things come from (Lessig, 2007)”. Which made me think without transformation, in this case music, then how can music really evolve if we couldn’t feed off what’s around us, we need inspiration, and I suppose you can only use yourself for inspiration for so long until you run out of ideas!

In addition, within Lessig’s talk he talks about how the “older generation does the consuming and the youth do the producing (Lessig, 2007)”. But the problem still holds is that if these copyright laws do become strict, and monitored more with the amount of remixing and producing off of other sources still be okay? When is it considered to be using too much of someone else’s material for remixing, that is the main question I am stumped on. OR is it as long as you consider the work to be remixed or transformed then you’re “safe”.  Then there is the main issue of copyright is okay as long as it is for “personal use and not commercial use (Crew, 2011 p.4)”. But now with sites like YouTube which is generally considered fair game to material, people could post a remixed video then it go viral, and the producer end up making money off of the views it generated, so again how is that not considered copyright, yes it was “personal” use and material in it was transformed/remixed but then there’s profit made so which outweighs the other?

Overall, people are going to continue to use free media and illegally download because in the end, it is free and people like free whatever it may be. Even within the article Cultures of Music Piracy, a study had been conducted looking at how online free music downloading affecting record sales “to their surprise they found that downloads had an effect on record sales that ‘indistinguishable from zero’ (Condry, 2004, p 349)”. Maybe the fact being that if people really like their music or artist they’ll still chose to support them because they don’t want to see their favourite band/artist disappear! In addition, especially for now the older generation is not always as up to date on illegal and free download systems, and resort to buying cds to get their favourite song. An example is my mother has no idea how to turn on a computer, let alone figure out how to get music free, so when she hears a good song on the radio or likes the artist she will go buy their cd! I may download online for free, but I do give back, I’m an avid concert goer and when I’m at my favourite artists shows/concert I’m always buying their merchandise and just buying the tickets alone are expensive enough, and that’s where artists make so much of their money by performing!  The only thing I could see that would stop illegal downloading would be that the punishment/law become strictly enforced, otherwise it is still going to continue to happen.

Happy blogging,
only 2 blogs left L
xo marmar!


Condry, Ian. (2004). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and JapanInternational Journal of Cultural Studies. 7 (3), pg. 343-363

Crews, K. (2001). Case summary:  A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.: implications for the digital music library . Retrieved 17 Jun 2013 from http:/

Lessig, L. Laws that choke creativity. TED Talks (2007). Filmed March 2007, posted November 2007 on

Additional Resources : Students Blogs who helped to generate my summation

Revisiting Copyright Culture

Hello Again, only 2 modules left for this blogging adventure!

This post deals with the topic of copyright laws and how we as users consume content, as well as some produce it. This post will look at the different perspectives about copyright laws, and whether or not their good for our growing culture, or even way to kind of change copyright laws to make content more available under certain conditions.

Within the short youtube video on a conference of Larry Lessig, he shed some great light on the ups and downs of what copyright does for our culture. Lessig (2007) started off by talking about how in the earlier 20th century, they were worried about the “read-write” culture would be turned into this “read-only” culture, where as consumers would stop producing and just consume what they see. This was a fear 100 years ago, and I think it’s even more of a fear now, well even an actual problem that is occurring. There are so many of us out there (including myself) with the use of social media sites, so much media is consumed and reposted for others to watch, and share but very seldom to we produce. Until this class I would have never consider myself a producer of any kind, but with the creation of this blog and the video I made, I guess I’m helping to bring back the “read-write” culture. But even so, what I have produced, wasn’t completely my own, some was and some of it was remixed from other sources. Even though the sources I used were from YouTube, which many of the videos on their are free to be remixed, but everything is taken from somewhere else, how do I know where the material I used originated from, or if the material I used was someone who had taken the materially illegally from someone else? I think it is necessary in order for our culture to grow and expand by using and recreating other sources in order to generate different views and perspectives as well as display our creativity via online distribution. One of the things that stops our culture from growing is copyright laws.

Lessig raises some good ideas to possible change the copyright laws from being so scrict, and to help encourage producing and the remixing of material. Lessig pointed out 2 ideas that could help, the main one being “1) that the artist and creator have their work be available for free for non-commerical use (amateur use) (Lessing, 2007)”. Which I think is a great idea, but I don’t think it’d actually happen, due to the fact that artists are money hungry, and if they start allowing people to reuse their material.. they could be losing out on money. Also by the artists potentially allowing other to use their work for other to remix, even if it’s by an “amateur”, if the amateur’s work gets lots of hits on YouTube, then they in fact could be making money. Though I do know that people have become famous just off of their YouTube videos going viral, and they have found a way to own the rigths to their YouTube content, so when anyone uses any of their material in a remixed video, or re-posts it, only the original producer can make profits off of the views of the video.

Though within the article When creators, corporations and consumers collide: Napster and the development of on-line music distribution, they bring up the point that “the Internet is an arena of free exchange in which everyone wins (McCourt & Burkart, 2003, Pg. 334)”. Although the word free is in that sentence, some things may come with a price, an idea was brought up that if sites such as Napster (at the time) were to create a subscription price, then everyone could benefit. The article talks about the “Big Five” which are the 5 major label companies that could make a lot of profit from their media being accessed online, which are “EMI, Universal, Song, Time Warner and BMG (McCourt & Burkart, 2003 pg. 334). I think that if there was a site which had a subscription price to access media from the Big Five, that it would be a good idea, instead of having a pay-per song method like Itunes does. Even is the subscription site had a price point for the amount of material being used an example of say download up to 50 songs for $20 a month, or 100 songs for $30, etc that may be a good way to have people use and access media, with it being legal.

In conclusion, there are many ways in which people have generated ideas to overcome or work with copyright laws, to still make material accessible to consumers online. Though through reading these articles, they’ve been dated several years ago, and yet I’ve really seen no changes occur. I suppose Itunes is a way in which some of these ideas talked about in the post have been addressed, I know many people who use Itunes to purchase their songs instead of hacking and stealing material. But on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are many ways to gain access and download music for free if you’re tech saavy enough or simply just search Google, and as fast as those sites get caught and shut down, new ones are constantly becoming available. I think what needs to be addressed is a way of cracking down and giving fines to the sites the give out media for free, or completely break the copyright laws… but is this even possible, is there a way of cracking down on everything made available via the internet? I for one unfortunately am one of those users who are searching the web to find free media content… If I knew that I could easily be fined for it, or even worse, then I would probably give in and begin purchasing media from sites such as Itunes, but if there’s a free/cheaper way to purchase/use anything, I’ll probably find it… Remember I am a student here 😉 And money isn’t always to find.

Just some thing’s to think about!
Happy Blogging,


Larry Lessig: Laws that choke creativity. TED Talks (2007). Filmed March 2007, posted November 2007.

McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350


copyright (Photo credit: A. Diez Herrero)

Web-Video – Born Gay

Here’s a video I created/remixed, all about different views on being Gay and to make heteorsexual people question some of their throughts based off of the stereotyping of what being Gay is. This is a mix of YouTube videos that I myself created and also videos that I did not create, but took material from for the use of making this video! ENJOY! Link below is to the video, sadly I couldn’t embed it 😦

NOTE: For best results, watch the video in Mozilla Firefox Browser, and give it time to fully load !

Here’s a link to the videos I used to remix this video! The other half was me recording my own stuff :)!

When Did you Chose to be Straight?

We Will Marry Your Boyfriends

Ellen DeGeneres on 15-year-old boy, Larry King, killed for being Gay

Robertson: Gays can be Changed as God can Change Murderers, Rapists


Ecard- Looking Forward To another Lesbain Wedding: Retrieved from:

PFLAG Mom Picture :

Homophobia : Retrieved from Image promoting the end of homophobia found at

Morgan Freeman’s View on Homophobia: Retrieved from

Summary: What’s Copyright and what’s not?

This is a summary from my following blog on “This Masterpiece is Copyright”.
While reading over my follow group members blogs, I’ve looked at things from a different perspective on some aspects as well as I’ve begun to think of many unanswered questions.

Many people agreed that YouTube can in fact be highly informative, and helps everyone look up information on certain subjects, a lot of members also said that youtube had some great videos on their blog topics. I too agree with them, there’s tonnes of videos out there on LGBTQ equality, and I know I use them quite a bit, and will even re-post the odd one to my social media site, in this case Facebook, to try and shed some light onto other people through the use of these videos. Though, some of them are clips from TV shows, is them being re-posted considered to be copyright? One of my group members explained about how some YouTube videos get taken down if they contain certain material and don’t explain to the users that they don’t own any of the material. Again, I personally think that if credit is being given to the original source where the material was taken, and made accessible to everyone who comes across the video, then it shouldn’t be considered copyright.

In a lot of ways, I’ve considered copyright and plagiarism to be kind of the same thing in certain ways, though for some reason plagiarism is much more heavily watched and “punishments” exist in a much more serious manner.. but maybe that has to do because 1) I’m a university student and copy the work of other people’s writing is a huge NO 2) many profs outside of media classes aren’t well educated in copyright laws. Even after reading these countless numbers of blogs, and doing the readings, everyone has put together this notion, that we indeed need the works of other people to work off of, and inspire our own creation, but we need to be careful to use “just enough” and nothing more, but what’s considered too much in terms of copyright laws? Why is there no policing of copyright laws?

I also never really touched on the whole producer-consumer aspect from the readings, it was brought up that many people consume what’s on the internet, but not many of those consumers are also producers. Which I think is very accurate, I know for myself, I do consume media and especially videos from YouTube, I find it highly useful for being able to watch videos of my Wrestling competitors, that I couldn’t find anywhere else. But I myself do not post videos to YouTube, I don’t produce any real kind of media, I just consume it or re-post other people’s videos. Though after this week and the creation of the video for this class, I guess I will finally be considered a producer for once! So far it’s been fun remixing and re-working other people’s material and tying in my own material, though I still am not sure with what I’m doing if I’m breaking any copyright laws? Hmmm..

In conclusion, I think that if people want to keep their material their own, and keep it from being remixed or reworked than the owner of that material needs to do something to keep it their own, or keep it from being embedded or even keep it off youtube and keep it on a pay per use site. I know that if someone posts certain TV series on Youtube, within hours of them posting it, it is taken down and a message then comes up saying the material was copyright. So my guess is that certain companies might pay youtube to ensure the safety of their material, which makes sense, when so much money can go into making a video, whats a few more dollars to ensure it remains untouched?

Happy Blogging,
And Good Luck on the Video Creations 🙂