Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Public domain
Public domain[edit source]
Someone pee review my shit please 
pillow talk 20:17, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
I've got this one. --ShabiDOO 01:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | I like this article and I like what you have done with it so far. Its funny. For me, at least, there are no LOL moments but there are a few particularly hilarious moments (three dimensional funny moments). As the article takes a variety of approaches to humour in such a short span, I think the overall tone and humour of the article suffers (in one sentence you are making fun of excuses users make to pirate stuff and a moment later you are on an absurd court case docket legally justifying pirating. Ive seen four kinds of humour in the article. Examples of approaches to humour:
Some of these humour styles overlap in different sections. I have the feeling that if the content was arranged into categories based on the humour type, instead of by each kind of work (music, dvds, photographs etc...) that you'll be able to not only bring out the humour in the article more, but also add some more structure, which Ill talk about in the Concept section. As for things that made me laugh or confused me, here is a play by play: The "3 part list later on in the article. The first paragraph after the into is okay, and the legal arguments are cute, though maybe its not best to end the gag with the "I wish the Plaintiff would stop making annoying arguments like that" part. Its funny but its totally out of flow with what comes before it. I was expecting a really good whopper. The english language theme that follows is also cute but seriously needs expansion. I don't understand why these two ideas appear in the same section. This isn't explicitly explained. Next paragraph: I find this paragraph funny, but I think it needs a bit of tweaking. Two suggestions: You haven't explicitly said that by chopping off so much of the range of the MP3's that you have radically cut much of the data content out of each song creating a new file. You could probably also fuse the three ideas (bandwidth cutting, John Doe, and bittorrent) into one narrative to give continuity. For instance, look at the whole end of the section this way: This is because an MP3 filters out generally inaudible frequencies near the top and bottom of the useful range of human hearing. By cutting out so much of the data, the actual content of the file has been radically altered (though happily changing little of the audible quality to an average music fan), meaning not only is the song no longer reproduced in the way the artist had recorded it, but it is also, as an electronic file radically different. It is essentially a new work. This may seem paradoxical as one person may listen to the two recordings in a row and assume their Ipod was set on replay, but he really did listen to two different files and hear two different artistic works. The paradox also extends to ownership. For example, Metallica's song "Enter Sandman" was recorded in 24-bit audio and belongs to Lars Ulrich. When John Doe creates his compressed, lossy version of of "Enter Sandman", it is a completely different file and sound quality and thus a new work, meaning that version belongs to Doe, creating a problematic situation wherein "Enter Sandman" is owned by both Ulrich and Doe. To resolve this double paradox, the song simply uploaded onto Bittorrent which immediately makes the MP3 in public domain anyways and paradoxically by extention original recording by Metalica also. Thats not the best way to do it and not funny, but it can be done and Im certain the two parodoxes and bit torrent can be written into one narrative fusing the ideas and making the joke stronger. Photographs: I like this section and find it funny. Film and TV: Brilliant and funny. Software: The whole idea is cute but to me atleast it all gets a little corny. You are introducing the legal judgement motif again, and the counting toes things rips us way out of context. While the rest of the article is based on some satire of the actual situation of public tomain as of today and peoples liberal interpretation of the law and how they excuse their own piracy, the counting toes part is not only way off topic but also has nothing to do with copywriting files, nor this century (as you mention just a sentence earlier that 1s and 0s arent copywritghed). Im not a gamer so I don't get the Zork reference. |
| Concept: | 5 | If you are trying to write an article which laughs at how legal arguments can make anything black seem white and how people can say anything to justify piracy and sporking items into the public domain you have done a good job. Ive suggested above that the article could perhaps be restructured.
One thing that kind of threw me off reading the article was that you gave three categories of justifying putting a work into the public domain in the intro, but then didn't refer to that later in the article. As I mentioned before, you may consider restructuring the article through the four categories of humour used in the article which I mentioned above in the humour section. If you do so, and in the following order, you would be able to write the article in a narrative format and also document the history of "public domain copyright". I list the four with a possible heading Personal legitimacy, people downloading things without shame3. Lame excuses people use to justify using copyright images: The four point list. Its not really pirating if the movie sucks and you wouldn't pay for it anyways. It was created by foreigners. Social legitimacy, the bending of truth1. Slight bending of the truth (such as bringing the amount of time a work of art must exist before getting into the public domain from 60 years to 7). Exagerating the extend to which you can minimally manipulate an image and thus bring it into the public domain etc... Moral Legitimacy, logic and ethics combined4. Inventive ways to make works seem like they should belong in the public sphere: MP3's, DVD chain of 0s and 1s. Some of these overlap. I have the feeling that if the content was arranged into these categories, instead of by each kind of work (music, dvds, photographs etc...) that you'll be able to not only bring out the humour in the article more, but also add some more structure, which Ill talk about in the Concept section. Court legitimacy, political and ultimately legal acceptance2. Absurd court rulings: A judge using a complicated ruling on the extention of internet cables into public view thus making all internet content public domain. A judge overulling the copyright of digits because he wants to know the time. Perhaps writing the article in this format instead of by artistic form (cd, book etc...) you can not only add a story, but a time line and some invented evolution of the growth of the public domain, from people just downloading shit, to courts accepting it on bogus rulings. Just a thought. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | While the writing in individual sentences is mostly good and even within sections, it is choppy at time, there is no clear beginning nor end and the style changes a fair bit but I don't have much more to add to what I've already mentioned in the above two sections. |
| Images: | 6 | The first image is pretty funny with a great caption, it made me laugh. Not sure what to make of the twighlight image...what does twilight specifically have to do with the rest of the article? The second image is great, though I think perhaps it could be chopped better. The last picture is okay, though doesn't seem to be extra special. Ideas?: A diagram of computer cables reaching into the street thus somehow becomming public domain. A pompous british court scene in an old courtroom with a glowing laptop illustrating the advance of public technology and the public domain arguments in the legal world. A image of someone at a computer with stacks and stacks of ripped CDs calling it a recording studio. Anyhoo...just ideas. |
| Miscellaneous: | 10 | Ten points cause the title and idea so far is awsome and there are some funny moments. |
| Final Score: | 33 | In my humble opinion, either each section needs expanding and you need to find some way to thread the sections together, or, you might need to restructure or add a stronger concept/story line/angle to the article to make it one of your typical awsome articles, though it seems 80 percent done. Good luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. |
| Reviewer: | --ShabiDOO 23:45, May 19, 2011 (UTC) | |