1.1 More of Fear, the internet and copyright

This was written in order to elaborate on my last post about institutions using fear to control the distribution of their content. I was asked to include comment about what it would mean for people involved in creative industries:


I am sure that no-one wants to see musicians, actors or authors etc go without being paid for their work, but the current system is outdated. As consumers we want access to content now! And the internet offers a way to get it.

Film and music production companies, news media agencies, publishers etc are essentially businesses who have become very good out of making money out of other peoples ideas and works. They have had access to the channels of distribution the average person has not, making them the middleman between producer and consumer. The ability to share files over the internet challenges the necessity and relevance of the "middleman" and their business model is starting to unfold.

There is an interesting case going through the courts at the moment where "Hollywood"  (US film production companies) are trying to sue iiNet - an Australian ISP over file sharing (Turner 2011). They claim that the ISP is "authorizing copyright infringements" (Fisk and Humphries 2011) by providing a network where it can take place. To me this case is akin to suing a car manufacturer over speed related road fatalities or suing a phone company over conversations had on their networks.

Personally I think its time for these companies to come up with a new idea when it comes to distributing content. They need to move forward and update their business model just like any other business has to do when challenged by new competition. Creative types still need copyright, and should be remunerated for the works they produce, but the industry between producer and consumer needs adapt to change, rather than employing bullying tactics to try and prevent it.

 Fisk, A., and J. Humphries. 2011. An industry-wide solution will tackle illegal downloads: iiNet. http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20110812-an-industry-wide-solution-will-tackle-illegal-downloads.html (accessed 5/9/11).

 Turner, A. 2011. AFACT Uncle Sam's puppet in iiNet trial. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/afact-uncle-sams-puppet-in-iinet-trial-20110902-1jp4w.html (accessed 5/9/11).

1.1 Are you afraid of the Net? Is this fear appropriate? Why? Why not?

I think fear is used to by institutions to hang onto the asset that makes them money. In some cases it is information and other times it could be digital files such as songs or movies. Industries have been built on the production and controlled distribution of such content but once online, it becomes free for all to see, copy, use, and distribute and becomes less financially valuable.

Fear is then used to try regain control of the commodity via threat of criminal conviction and fines. Working as a stopgap until institutions find a new way to profit from commodification of content.

1.1 Notes: Critical information studies for participartory culture (part 2) (Jenkins 2009)

Henry Jenkins blog post discusses digital media and the everyday persons involvement with the creation of content (e.g. news or entertainment etc). His post stems from discussions from the University of Virginia conference regarding issues surrounding digital media that are seen to block a "more participatory society" (Jenkins 2009).

Main main points I have taken from this article are:

•  Fear - the internet like anywhere else has its dangers but these dangers are often amplified through the media and create a sense of fear which can prevent some people from participating in online society. Jenkins states that people need to be educated in the dangers of online communication and  need to be made aware of their "ethical responsibilities" (Jenkins 2009) when participating in digital media. Some wise words when you think about this in the context of cyber-bullying as education could only be helpful for not only children (being told what it is,  why not to do it, and who to tell if its happening to you) but would also be a great help to parents.
  
• The Digital Divide - This was always a term I associated with a lack of access to computers or a lack in computer literacy but as Jenkins points out it also about people feeling entitled to participate in online society. For example I know many young people who ban their computer literate parents from joining social media sites such as Facebook as they do not want to mix the family and social spheres of life together. This for me brings up further issues regarding identity, relationships and  and ideas about privacy which are all skewed slightly in the online environment. Do we all need to present out whole selves to everyone we have ever met just because we are friends in the online environment? Or should we be allowed to present the parts of us that are most relevant to the social situation we are in as we do in real life? (such as a professional demeanor for work colleagues, and more relaxed demeanour around friends)
  
• Reasserting Fair Use - corporations are having a "crisis of copyright" while citizen groups are having a "crisis of fair use" (Jenkins 2009). What this boils down to is that while we may have access to content and the ability to manipulate it, change it and reuse it we do not necessarily have permission from the copyright owners to do so which ultimately ends in litigation. I agree with Jenkins when he states “struggles over intellectual property may be the most important legal battleground determining the future of participatory culture” (Jenkins 2009) as this will determine if ones creativity is a criminal offence should they choose to reference the media influences of their lifetime.

Many other points were covered here too such as the role of collective intelligence in our education system, allowing social media in schools, the role of citizen journalism and its effect on traditional news media industries, segregation of social groups in the online environment, the construct of a global society and online governance and activism. The three points fear, the digital divide and fair use have been the ones I have been most drawn to.

 Jenkins, H. 2009. Critical Information Studies For a Participatory Culture (Part Two). http://www.henryjenkins.org/2009/04/what_went_wrong_with_web_20_cr_1.html (accessed 5/9/11).

1.1 Activity 2: Can you think about people who may not have access to online resources? What do you think the consequences are for them in this increasingly digitised world?

One example of differing levels of access given in the Did You Know 4.0 video was that of the 2008 American Presidential campaigns or John McCain and Barack Obama that states

“In February 2008, John McCain raised $11 million for his U.S. presidential bid. That same month, Barack Obama attended no campaign fundraisers. Instead, Obama leveraged online social networks to raise $55 million in those 29 days” (xplanevisualthinking 2009)

What this shows is while both candidates and their parties could access a computer and the internet, it was Obama who harnessed the power of those who were not just computer literate but who were also literate in online social networking.

This form of campaigning gave Obama access to a previously untapped market of voters- many of whom were of younger demographic, and also allowed him to stay in touch voters giving them a space to gather despite geographical dispersion. (Carr 2008)

While this campaign required a high level of computer literacy it also required a high levels in marketing literacy, for example - how to target specific demographics and how to develop a sense of trust, motivation and inclusion within targeted groups, both of which apply to both online and offline environments.

The statistics prove that in America - social networking is a powerful tool in election campaigning, and those without access or the knowhow can be left behind.

 Carr, D. 2008. How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks' Power. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html (accessed 2/9/11).

xplanevisualthinking. 2009. Did You Know 4.0. video. YouTube.

1.1: Did you know 4.0 - notes

This short online video uses statistics based on American media consumption to to compare old media (such as newspapers, magazines and television) to the new media we use today (such as the internet, social networking, mobile phones and texting). It reminds the viewer that technology and media are today intertwined and that the evolutionary nature of technology and new media will continue to challenge the popularity and trustworthiness of "old media" traditions, especially in when it comes to the younger, more tech-savvy market.

Although this video is can be access globally through YouTube, and is being used in this context as a teaching aide for an Australian University course it has been important for me to remind myself that this is not a comment on the GLOBAL impact of new  media on old media - it is a snapshot of current media trends based mostly on American statistics. With only 30.2% of the worlds population having access to the internet  (World Internet Usage and Population Statistics  2011) the effect of new media on old media globally remains questionable.


Some of the statics I found most interesting were:


In regards to audiences and access:
"convergence is everywhere. It is easier than ever to reach a large audience, but harder than ever to really connect with it"  (xplanevisualthinking 2009) - meaning that just because we can access media in more ways than ever before, it doesn't mean that we as audiences pay attention to it. Targeting the media preferences of the intended audience is more important than ever before as we are no longer relegated to just the newspaper, television, radio or magazine.

In regards to accessibility and economy:

"Nokia manufactures 13 cell phones every second" (xplanevisualthinking 2009)

This demonstrates that phone companies are becoming a major part of the media industry, as the technology they create makes media accessibility portable.

In regards to media institutions and economy:

“This year, traditional advertising is in steep decline . . . TV down 10.1%, newspapers down 18.7% ... meanwhile digital advertising is growing rapidly . . . mobile phones up 18.1%, internet 9.2%” (xplanevisualthinking 2009). This means that the traditional income streams for media institutions are weakening, but does not necessarily mean that they institutions themselves are weakened. It could also mean they are changing tactics - from offline to the online world in order to harness new income streams.

 World Internet Usage and Population Statistics. 2011. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 3/10/11).

xplanevisualthinking. 2009. Did You Know 4.0. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8 (accessed 1/9/11).

   

1.1 Activity 1: Tell me about your digital self. What online media sites do you engage with? Provide a map of your online lives.

For me the internet is a space where I can keep up to speed with things in both Australia and my husbands home country of Wales. I read the Sydney Morning Herald online while listening to Welsh radio while the news headlines from the BBC UK RSS feed scrolls along the bottom of my browser window.

Skype has been invaluable asset for keeping in touch with the overseas in-laws and the rest of the family - in fact at Christmas time the family and I Skyped my bother who was in Canada and sat the laptop on the table so he could be involved in Christmas lunch. It kind of felt like we were in the movie Back to the Future but without the flying cars or hovering skateboards!

I tried twitter but didn't like it much and although I do check it every day I am falling out of love with Facebook as reading about peoples trip to the shops, bad driving and what they ate for lunch today really isn't cutting for me at the moment. I can however while away hours on YouTube - this is my favorite time waster of the moment... 

Also -  thanks to NET102 I now while away hours on blip.fm finding and listening to music.

I  shop online, learn online  and work for an online store yet still do not feel as if  I am an overly plugged-in person as I do not have a iPhone  - so once I am away from my desk I am free of on-line connection. My digital self is very much about being present when it suits me, not about being accessible any given time.