fpunkybrewster1114 has 17 post(s)

In chapter 6, Taylor argues that while many people hoped that the internet would bring a more varied landscape, advertising dollars have distorted the market by creating perverse incentives and encouraging the production of irresistibly clickable content. Taylor uses a term called “native advertising” to explain this phenomenon, which is basically just a fancy way of saying that one’s online behavior is monitored and therefore the products that you are exposed too are simply a result of your likes or dislikes being interpreted through the sites you frequently visit, and the items you show interest in online. The text states “product placement is on the upsurge, growing at a rate of 30 percent per year despite the recession, and branded content is all the rage. Conventional disclosure laws do not apply online or are simply impossible to enforce. This kind of stealth marketing has a corrosive effect on public discourse, institutional integrity goes out the window when editorial content adapts to advertiser demands.” In other words, the pair of shoes you were searching before didn’t just happen to pop up at the bottom of your screen because it’s the universe’s way of saying you should buy it, it popped up because we are targeted victims of advertisers.

As a result of this cultural shift, even authors have been encouraged to cultivate identities as “tastemakers” in order to capitalize on the shift to electronic reading. They are encouraged to team up with certain brands in order to market themselves to readers. Now, not only does the reader learn of a new book by his/her favorite author, but the reader is inclined to purchase that new jacket or bbq sauce that the author is promoting as well. As Taylor states ” It’s advertising system is explicitly designed to figure out which messages are most likely to grab our attention and then to place those messages in our field of view.” This is the essence of native advertising and the strategy behind “tastemakers.”

The term copyleft is used to describe the opposite of what copyright law was intended to do. While copyright law was intended to protect the work of artists, musicians, etc., those who support copyleft support the ability for users to redistribute information without consequence. These free culture lobbyists believe that an open society will result in equality for all. There is an entrenched belief that culture should be free and the creative works of others should not be owned by the creators, but rather, the public. However, the text highlights the problems with copyleft, stating:
“it offers a limited political response to entrenched systems of economic privilege, and it does not advance limits on profitability or promote fair compensation. Free culture, with its emphasis on access, does not necessarily lead to a more just social order. To pay to watch an independent movie does not mean capitulating to the privatization of knowledge, but rather recognizes the work that went into making it and provides some support so that the effort can continue.”
In our current society, the lobbying for copyleft has also resulted in the rationalization of the “struggling artist” in my opinion. We often look for ways to obtain free music, books and other creative works, and we justify our position for not wanting to pay for these items by romanticizing the idea of the struggling artist. We act as though it is a rite of passage, and perhaps it was in the past, however, if our society continues in the way it does, those in the creative field would be forced to create in their spare time since they are not being compensated for their work, and will be forced to look to other means for a source of income.

(more…)

In Chapter 5, the text states “Copyright, from day one, was designed to be both an impediment and an incentive, a mechanism of enclosure (one that prevented the unlicensed printing of texts, thereby limiting access), a catalyst of sorts, a structure to stimulate the production of literary goods by rewarding writers and publishers for the labor”
With the growth of digital media, it seems that distributing the work of others has become the norm. Social media is constantly plagued with inspirational quotes, sometimes referencing the author, other times it does not. We are able to share this work with thousands of people online which, in actuality violates copyright laws, however, it seems that these laws are now outdated and cannot apply to the digital age.
The two basic arguments are that culture can be owned and passed from heir to heir without concern for the wider public, while those in support of openness say that any restrictions on the use of cultural artifacts is an assault of individual freedom. What’s interesting is that the supporters of openness fail to acknowledge that said openness results in the inequality that they are trying to prevent. While they argue that all work belongs to the public and not the makers because all work is “built on prior creativity,” they essentially reduce the value of these creative works by allowing for them to be shared freely online. Additionally, they support “free culture” and believe it will end artist exploitation without realizing that in some ways, it is the public that exploits the artist by demanding his work be shared freely. What is overlooked is the fact that some of the support for “free culture” comes from venture capitalist who see a way to make money. The text gives examples of Facebook and Google who make their money by controlling the platforms on which people distribute various kinds of media and sell access to their user base to advertisers. As a result, more copying and sharing means more profit for those at the top, while the creators themselves stand to profit less or not at all by their work being shared freely online.

The idea behind networked amateurism is that with the growth of the internet, it is believed that everyone has equal opportunity to pursue their interests and make money from it. For example, many aspiring photographers use Instagram to display their work to the public, without the use of an agent. Taylor makes the point that these social media sites are bombarded with amateurs, because some of these individuals have no training or qualifications. Still, this networked amateurism is hailed by many as a means to change the way money circulates.
Techno optimists overlook the fact that the reverse is actually true and, in the words of Taylor, we “hasten the transfer of wealth to Silicon Valley billionaires.” She uses the example of the Press Pause Play documentary that discusses the digital revolution and support of DIY principles, and highlights the fact that they completely omit the fact that their project was funded by a major telecommunications company. What appears to be a culture where the amateur can profit substantially through the use of the internet is actually a myth. The ability for each individual to create and publish their work online for the entire world to see does not make us egalitarian. She states “the struggle between amateurs and professionals is, fundamentally, a distraction. The tragedy for all of us is that we find ourselves in a world where the qualities that define professional work; stability, social purpose, autonomy, and intrinsic and extrinsic rewards- are scarce. Low paid helots are now unpaid interns and networked amateurs, and we have somehow deceived ourselves into believing that the state of insecurity and inequity is a form of liberation.”

Taylor’s argument states that the fate of creative people in the new economy exists in two incommensurable realms of value; the purely economic activity and the elevated forms of value we associate with art and culture. The first realm deals with the idea that work is done for money, and she refers to this group as the “professionals”. Benkler and Shirky argue that only those who despise their work deserve to be paid for their efforts. The second group deals with those who work for the love of it, or the “amateurs”. Professionals and amateurs are sometimes separated by skill, but always separated by motivation, because the essence of amateurism is intrinsic motivation. As a result, amateurs are willing to work and produce content simply for the love of it, and may even lose money in order to feed their desire to create, while professionals are motivated by the economic gain that comes from working.

Taylor highlights something that affects our society currently; the idea that work must be enjoyable and that you must love what you do for a living. The problem however, is that we tend to believe that the labor of those who appear to love what they do does not by definition qualify as labor. Taylor states “what sounds like idealism reveals itself to be the opposite because it is deeply cynical to deny professionals any emotional investment in their work.”
The challenge faced by teachers, activists and artists is that there is a commonly held belief that we should work for love and not money, and this helps justify corporations’ unwillingness to compensate in jobs that are believed to serve the public. The idea of the “starving artist” is sensationalized by new media thinkers, almost as though they believe this is a rite of passage for those in the arts and culture. Taylor states that for these new media thinkers, “the ideal worker is an individual who is versatile and rootless, inventive and adaptable; who self-motivates and works long hours, one who loves work so much, he or she would do it no matter what and so expects little compensation or commitment in return.” As a result of this thinking, people in these jobs settle for little compensation because they believe it is better to love what they do, and they disregard the fact that you can love what you do and be compensated handsomely for it as well.

Taylor’s definition of free information has to do with the fact that there are proponents and opponents to Net neutrality. Proponents believe that Net neutrality will allow the internet to become an open platform, where all users have access to free information. It has frequently been argued that this open network will ensure the the equal treatment of all data, but it fails to address the fact that net neutrality applies to cable or DSL service at home, but not your cell phone. Smartphones have given us the ability to search for information, and since people are frequently on the go, this is primarily their means of searching for information. Proponents of net neutrality believe that openness and free information will eliminate discriminatory behavior, and prevent companies from spiking traffic to their own websites. There is a commonly held belief that this access to free information will level the playing field and allow everyone to obtain success, especially those in arts and culture. However, these proponents fail to acknowledge the commercialization and consolidation of the digital sphere, as well as the market’s role in shaping our media system. In other words, free information which is seen as the tool that levels the playing field for all, is actually a myth because the corporate giants are still the ones who inevitably profit since most individuals do not have the money to invest in their success like huge corporations do.

Taylor’s argument that we “grant agency to tools while side stepping the thorny issue of the larger social structures in which we and technologies are embedded” is her attempt to address the fact that we allow technology to take over our daily lives so much so, that we fail to recognize the impact it has on the social structures. For example, it is free to participate in social media sites, however, it is the people and corporations who own these sites that benefit from our online interactions with one another. Their success depends solely on our obsession with sharing personal details about our lives such as where we have been, what we are eating, and what we think.

Taylor attempts to address an issue that is not often thought about as we engage in these social media sites on a daily basis, she brings to light that we are simply working (for free) which results in the powerful remaining powerful. While some people believe that technological advancements have leveled the playing field because people can achieve success without the use of the middle man, for example, self-publishing authors and artists, they discount the fact that the bigger corporations are still able to pay to have their products and services pushed online, in a way that small start-up companies or individuals would never be able to afford. Additionally, those in professions such as photography may be able to push their work on social sites and create an online presence without the use of an agent, however, the social network site owners are still the ones profiting handsomely from every image that is uploaded, and aside from profit, they become the owners of these images once you hit the send. Taylor shows that technology helps maintain the status quo.

Regards,

Natasha Wong