å September 2015

The “Bored at Work Network” is described as a group of digital media users, particularly those who are bored in offices or other jobs, that are able to access and use digital media such as news and entertainment on devices such as computers/laptops, tablets or smart phones. Jonah Peretti, the cofounder of the Huffington Post and founder of Buzzfeed describes the contents that members of the “Bored at Work Network” access as “easy to understand, easy to share, and includes a social imperative” (p. 99). In addition, priority is placed on how popular and how fast an idea can be shared and spread over its quality.
These days, when some users get bored, it is very easy to just take out smart phones or tablets to surf the Web, watch movies or video clips, listen to music, read news or e-books, or play games. The “Bored at Work Network” types of contents are mostly what users with limited time (such as stolen moments at work as mentioned by Taylor on p. 99) engage themselves in since these contents are usually the popular ones and do not take up much of the users’ time to understand them. Because we know that these contents are always with us on our devices, we are very likely to get distracted wherever we are, even when we are in school or at work. Some users who get bored at work deal with the boredom by checking social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. They share news and videos that not only interest them but also those they think that are easy to share and those that they want to go viral.

In the chapter “ The Double Anchor” it is seen that copyright has been in the rise since the welcoming of digital media. Has it been applied to digital media regulations on its entirely, not necessarily. It is so easy to search and at the instant of a click one could have access to information that is exposed by others. Nowadays, it is hard to define who is the owner of an idea when hundreds are able to share and even duplicate without ones consent. Digital media has facilitated the access to films that are still at movies, music that is not meant to be free and instead could be very easily downloaded, and also the access to articles that is not meant to be free and instead needs subscription.

As an example “ Companies like Facebook and Google, in contrast, mostly make their money by controlling the platforms on which people distribute various kinds of media, and selling access to their base to advertiser “ (Taylor, Loc 2409). The problem resides in the big corporations; they are the ones who profit from all these clicks and what the public and consumers have access too. Technology has made it easy to copy, burn and “jailbreak”.

It isn’t that digital media is complicating our relationship to copyright, its that we have always had a complicated relationship with copyright and the Internet is just the latest method in which the issue has become even more convoluted. Taylor makes it very clear that the concept of ownership of ideas and creative work has been an argument for hundreds of years. Every introduction of new technology that distributes creative work- books, records, radios, tapes, CDs, DVDs, and now the Internet – recreates a panic claiming that piracy by use of the new media will infringe on the rights and profits of those who legally own the art (though the legality of ownership versus distribution rights is another matter.)

The two major opposing views of the copyright issue can be generalized in one group as those who feel all culture should be shared freely as it was created by being influenced by existing culture. The other group are those who feel that something created is something owned and to be profited upon. Granted neither of these groups uphold or represent the views of most artists who wish to create their work for all to have access to it, but also want to pay their bills and have the means to create more art. The creators themselves are not often present in current legal debates about copyright law.

Digital media has further complicated this debate of ownership of content as the Internet, which does not actually produce a physical product, makes the ability to share information and media easier and faster than media (vinyl, cassette tapes, etc) of the past. More media is being shared without compensation than ever before. Internet platforms have also created new ways to profit via distribution that cut the artist from ownership of their own art. These media companies justify their actions by threatening to not distribute the artist’s work at all, cutting them off from any potential profit however minuscule.

Complex creative labor is the human touch placed upon a project or work. Most of our labor in modern times is done in rapid fashion due to our advancements in technology. Take for example the assembly line, a way of mass producing product for the masses but at the same time cutting much of the middle men from the equation. Technology has dipped it’s fingers in every aspect of our work place. Though, in many cases it has helped us for the greater good, it has also replaced the unique and one of a kind admiration we once had for products and goods we purchased. Everything becomes the same and robotic when all and everything mimics the next thing to its left and to its right. Beautiful words on a page are now translated into meaningless text without emotion through an app on our cellular phones or through a quick search on the web. Being creative in our labor allows for new ideas  and inventions and prevents us from quickly getting to a point of stagnation. Creative labor brings with it culture and history within the completed end result rather it be a product or a work place. Much can be learned from this then simply putting workers on a line collecting parts or placing a piece of code through a computers software program

In Taylor’s chapter, “The Double Anchor” she describes how digital media continues to cause a problem when the intentions to protect your creative works arise. Copyright laws are in place to ensure that original works are safe from being taken. With the expanding influence of the Internet, we are constantly seeing “original works” replicated and reproduced in numerous ways. Taylor defines this sweeping trend to blur the lines between creators producing work that is being considered free knowledge while having the creator lose out on a profit.

The copyright debate is one that Taylor speaks of with regard to having the rights to finished products. Artists might draw inspiration from previous work to make a film, write a book, or compose a song, however they should be considered as their work to claim. She poses the question of who can claim knowledge and whether it is free. the notion of “free” and ownership is a topic she discusses. With works being shared, the concept of owning anything has changed and many artistic industries have been largely affected. Essentially not all creators find the exposure to be such a negative thing, while others find themselves losing out with the rise of this new digital age.

          In chapter 5 “The Double Anchor” we talk about digital media and copyright and how they are related. Copyright is a right made by the law that allows the maker of the unique work have an exclusive rights for sharing and using. This right usually has a limited time. “Copyright, from day one, was designed to be both, an impediment and an incentive, a mechanism of enclosure and catalyst of sorts, a structure to stimulate the production of literary goods by rewarding writers and publishers for their labor”.

          In our digital time people have their own vision of this situations. Many of them think that stuff like movies, music and etc. have to be free. For example, in Taylor’s book we talk about the documentary “Examined Life” which after the premiere was found online right away. Person who made this movie needs copyright because he spent a lot of money, energy and time to make that movie. Of course in return he wanted to have some profit. At the end he doesn’t get any of it or just a little bit because his work was sharing online for free. After something got posted in the Internet, you can’t control it anymore. At the same time it doesn’t belong to that person and it become free: “Free can mean something that no one can own, that belongs to all”. The information goes from one computer to the Internet, than from network into another computer and this process keeps repeating and people don’t stop sharing information. “When creative work is available without limit, freely accessible, it tends also to become free of charge. This tendency leads us straight to what” long been called the “paradox of value”, or the diamond-water paradox. Diamonds are valuable for being scarce, but water, which we need to live, is comparatively worthless”.

Marisa Chung
Hybrid Assignment # 3
09/22/15

Digital media has been complicating our relationship to copyright in many different ways and it has been affecting us tremendously even more now than it ever has before. I believe that it all begins with having no “in-between’s” when trying to make a successful living through digital media, or even make a living at all. It seems as though it’s either you make it extremely big, or the years of hard work and dedication goes unnoticed due to the work being spread across the internet in fast speed with just a click of a button. The work being spread across the internet comes with a catch; that the information that is being shared is free. As Taylor mentions in chapter 5, “free” can mean something that no one can own, that belongs to all. That alone is a big dilemma for the creators.

Another problem mentioned in chapter 5 is that making movies is not cheap. Taylor states that even in this age of digital video, and support for many different projects, everyone comes with high expenses. How can an artist create work with their own knowledge and creativity or even with their team and not be given what they deserve in return? What would be the purpose to begin a hard project if the goal is to have the work float around the media for free? This should be something that the creator gets to have a say on; how their work should be distributed. Unfortunately, it seems as though the complications between digital media and copyright will continue to exist unless we fight for change.

Angeline Henriquez

Digital Media and Society

 How Digital Media Complicates our Relationship to Copyright

Originally, copyright was meant to serve as an incentive to prompt the making of literary works. Through the preventing of unlicensed printing, these works were made less accessible and thus commodified; owned by a few with the power over their distribution. But can anyone claim ownership of knowledge and ideas when creative work derives and is inspired by our collective experiences?  Taylor states that “knowledge cannot be owned and we have a responsibility to share it” (p.142). With the arrival of the Internet came a platform for sharing creative work limitlessly, thus posing a contradiction to what copyright originally meant, “ the Internet…is nothing if not a copy making machine, a place where replicating things and passing them along are effortless and essential” (p.144). As an example, Taylor highlights that every time “we surf and skim, passing along songs instead of albums, quotes instead of essays, clips instead of films” is in direct contradiction to the notion of copyrights. How can anyone claim the right to owning a piece of creative work when said work circulates around the globe in ways the artists cannot control?

As it is, copyright laws have not caught up with digital media. “The copyright regime cannot be considered fit for the digital age when millions of citizens are in daily breach of copyright, simply for shifting a piece of music or a video from one device to another” (p.149). With this change in the concept of ownership, the capitalist interest then shifts towards selling the access to content such as streaming services. In this way the aim is to purchase archives of what already exists, the danger in this however, is that only a handful of individuals or companies dominate the cultural field. “Driven by profit, not the public, interest, they have become the custodians of our collective heritage” (p. 145).

Digital Dimes, is referred to the replacement of print advertising into online advertising. That is to say that when the Internet entered the market “ content started circulating freely online, print sales began to decline”(Taylor, Loc 1216). Digital advertising came as a replacement from regular advertisement; for example, craigslist serves the audience as a free website to publish, sell, and advertise, whatever is desired by an individuals means. One could easily find or post for free at speed of a few clicks. Meanwhile, printed advertisement is considered as the “analog dollar” it cost more, it requires investment and planning before going out to the public.
Thus, for an online advertisement to be profitable there must be at least thirty clicks to be equal to an online subscriber. The consequences of online blooming will continue to encounter new ways of turning the analog dollar into digital dime, which later on will evolve to pennies “trading analogue dollars for digital dimes for mobile pennies”.

Copyright laws have become much more complicated with the rise of digital media. The framers of the Constitution modeled our copyright laws after Great Britain’s Statute of Anne, which gave authors exclusive rights to their work for twenty-eight years. It was designed to limit access and stimulate production by giving writers a reward and an incentive to continue creating. At first only works such as books and maps received this protection but over the years it has come to apply to any form of expression and to extend to up to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. Since most people do not live 120 years, the original intent of the laws is irrelevant. But, as Taylor states, “new technologies threaten to overturn this situation,” (149) forcing almost anyone who uses the Internet into violating copyright, simply by pasting, sharing and downloading. And if the majority of citizens are in violation of copyright laws, can the laws be considered appropriate for the digital age?

When one buys a hard copy of a book or record, one can lend the book to or share the record with hundreds of friends and copyright holders have little they can do about it. But on the Internet, while culture is easily exchanged, it is also easily monitored by the copyright holders and it is easy to see a future where “all cultural encounters are classified as ‘copyright events.’ ” (150)

There are two distinct camps in the “Copyright Wars”: those who believe that all art and culture should be free and open to the public and that any restriction is an assault on an individual’s freedom; and those who believe that culture can be owned outright, does not belong to the general public, and that all downloading is theft.

The free culture proponents see copyright as profiting large corporations, not the individual artists, and equate file sharing with activism. They believe abolishing copyright will lead to a more inclusive and democratic society, in which no ideas are created in isolation, therefore they should be free for all to experience.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” In other words, sharing does not create a loss to the creator.

In the second camp are groups such as the Recording Industry and the Motion Picture Association who see art as property and are fighting for more copyright restrictions on the Internet. But they are not fighting to help the artists.

Ironically, it is the artists themselves who are caught in the middle of the Copyright Wars. The industry often cuts them out of profiting from their own work so stricter copyright laws will not help them. And many emerging artists benefit from the exposure of their work when it is shared online so are not necessarily against file sharing. As Taylor states, “Most cultural producers, however, sympathize with both sides and wind up somewhere in between.” (169)