í Assignments

In Taylor’s Chapter 5, the term “free” is introduced.  “Free” in this context, is defined as a way to subvert the capitalist corporate structure, or that the item (intellectual property) in question, has been “de-commodified”.  The prevailing belief of those who believe in the free culture concept, is an effective way to subvert corporate culture & defy market values.  This means having full access to materials (music, films,remixing & recontextualizing pop culture, or any other type of intellectual property), whether it is protected by copywrite laws or not, should/can be easily & freely shared by the denizens of the online world, without any type of compensation to/for the originators of the content.

On one hand, the proponents contend that the free sharing/consumption of these products is an inherent right of the people. However, big business is using these same peer-to-peer sharing sites & all other type of social media venues to their own benefit too.  The major media companies, like google & youtube, etc. – sell the personal information gathered to various sources, so that they can target & effectively market products.  So, when we talk about something being free, what it is really meaning is that, the end user/consumer feels no need, responsibility or desire to pay for the content; even though, the content is greatly desired. However, this does not address the loss of royalties or income producing activities to the owner of such artistic expression.  The public, by in large, is not supporting the artists who are producing the art the public is consuming en masse.  This lack of support is, in turn, making it harder & less desirable to continue to create & produce the art/content.

In Chapter 6, Astra Taylor takes a close look at advertising in the digital age. One of the most disturbing new developments in the digital age is the ability for advertisers to zero in on the people they are trying to reach because of the vast information they have on that person. Before the Internet, companies placed their ads in a particular magazine or TV show according to the supposed demographics of the reader or viewer, hoping that they would reach the consumers they wanted to target. In the digital age, advertisers are able to gather such specific information about us from our online behaviors that they can directly target us individually. By gathering such detailed information, they are sorting us into “reputation silos,” a term used by Taylor (190) to describe the online label that we acquire and that can be difficult to shed. Taylor warns of “a new form of discrimination, one led by companies you cant see, using data you didn’t give them permission to access, dictating what you are exposed to and on what terms.” (191) It is very disconcerting to imagine someone watching your every move and deciding what you will or will not be exposed to based on what they see. But advertisers today do exactly that and we accept their right to do so every time we are online. We have become so used to the onslaught of online advertising that we may not even be able to distinguish ads from editorial content. The term “native advertising” describes a form of paid media that follows the design and function of the content in which it is situated, essentially blurring the line between ad and editorial. Taylor says Buzzfeed leads the pack with this type of advertorial, where “Staffers (creative strategists) concoct posts designed to maximize audience engagement while incorporating messages from brands”(194). Even print publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post and Forbes participate in native advertising on their online sites. The Times rolled out its first “paid post,” as they call them, in January of 2014, albeit with a prominent disclaimer. But most sites use more ambiguous language such as “branded” or “sponsored” content (Sebastian, M., Ad Age, 1-8-14) which is much more likely to catch readers off guard. Exactly what the marketers are hoping for.

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…)

Copyleft

“Copyleft” is the practice of making a program or work free and requiring that all works derived from it also remain free to the public. The GNU General Public License was originally written by Richard Stallman as a way to ensure freedom of users to redistribute and modify copies of software. In his 1985 GNU manifesto he wrote, “GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.” His reasoning was that he wanted to encourage free software to spread for the betterment of society.

Copyright law is used by an author to prohibit unauthorized reproduction, adaptation or use of the work. GNU or Copyleft licensing agreements use existing copyright laws but they ensure that the work remains free and available. Copyleft, while originally designed for software, can also cover documents and art. Under copyleft license, the author can give every person who receives the work the permission to redistribute and modify it, with the accompanying requirement that any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same licensing agreement.

Taylor states “it does not advance limits on profitability or promote fair compensation” (168). While recognition from peers is an incentive, there is no financial compensation to the artist. Filmmaker Jem Cohen emphasizes “respect for labor” where it is reasonable for an artist to receive fair compensation for his work. Copyleft and the free culture movement do not allow for that. Cohen believes that we need to value the work of the artist and recognize the work that went into it to create an environment of mutual respect and support between the artist and the audience.

Group Members:

Deborah Markewich

Janelle Figueroa

Angeline Henriquez

Digital Media and Society

September 27, 2015

Cultural Ownership

In chapter 5 “The Double Anchor” Taylor talks about traditional concepts of cultural ownership and how these notions are being challenged by digital media. Traditional ideas of cultural ownership emphasizes exclusive possession, meaning cultural works could only be used in their original form and context. However, Taylor states that this idea of cultural ownership is “fanciful” in this digital media era. “Online creative works are decontextualize, remixed, and mashed up. We surf, and skim, passing along songs instead of albums, quotes instead of essays, clips instead of films.” (p.145). Once an artist’s work enters the cyberspace, he/she has little control over it, thus the term “ownership” becomes very illusive.

However, upon discussing these definitions of cultural ownership as traditional versus non-traditional, my classmate Joyce and I talked about how the line between the two can get blurry. By Taylor’s definition, non-traditional ownership means that an artists’ work can be taken out of context, and that he has no control over how it circulates, but it so can happen without the aid of digital media. For example, if you read a work of literature and then lend the same physical copy to a friend, that friend might understand it in completely different ways than you did because that friend filters it through the lens of their own experiences and prior knowledge. And so if that friend then lends that same copy to a third person, their introduction and summary of the same book to this third person can differ greatly from what you understood the text was about, therefore affecting how the third person will understand it; again, the artists has no control over how their work circulates. Maybe they never really had control over it and digital media is just magnifying this occurrence.

Because digital media has prompted us to think more about ownership, laws surrounding this matter have become more rigid than ever. “Cultural commons are being cordoned off by private interest” (p.145) Taylor states, highlighting the contrast between the original intent of copyright laws, which was to serve as an incentive for the production of literary goods by recompensing writers and publishers, and the rigid structure that it has become today.

Group Members

Joyce Julio

Angeline Henriquez

Limited monopoly privilege is best described as the first version of copyright. Modeled after Great Britain’s Statute of Anne to manage book trading, limited monopoly privilege was developed reluctantly by Thomas Jefferson and the farmers of the Constitution who recognized that the concept of cultural property, though difficult to define, required some form of regulation. To put protective law on intellectual property is difficult because ideas are intangible. Where thoughts lack a physical being like that of a printed book or a chair, they do have tremendous potential and could spark even greater ideas that could, potentially, greatly benefit society. If a creator feared exploitation of his or her idea by others, they were likely to simply not publish or share their work. It was then decided that to provide creators with temporary exclusive rights and legal protection to their creations would encourage further creation of new cultural entities. Limited monopoly privilege was stressed to be an interim period, establishing monetary support to cultural creators for a window of time before their work, and ideally additional work, became free to all and part of our collective heritage. Until 1978 copyright in the styling of limited monopoly privilege was in practice mostly for books, charts and maps until a new definition of copyright’s scope was expanded to “apply to any ‘expression’ that has been ‘fixed’ to any medium” and even further deviated from the intended limitations, allowing copyright to extend to 70 years.

Due by midnight Tuesday, September 29th. You must complete both posts to receive credit

Post 1. Choose and define one of the terms below. [Tag this post as “Taylor definitions Ch4” or “Taylor definitions Ch5”]. Please make an effort to choose a term that has not yet been defined. (250-300 words)

Chapter 4: “hyper democracy” (105), “second level digital divide” (109), “the structureless group” (118), “preferential attachment” or “‘Matthew’ effect” (121), “the myth of independent creators” (123), Pariser’s “filter bubble” (131), Lomax’s “multi-channeled electronic communication” (135), Zuckerman’s “imaginary cosmopolitanism” (136).

Chapter 5: “free” (143), “cultural ownership” (traditional / nontraditional) (145), “limited monopoly privilege” (148), “copyright event” (150), “access to content” and “distribution networks” (154), “pirate politics” (160), “copyleft” (168).

Post 2. Taylor (205) argues, “[w]hile many hoped the Internet would help create a more varied cultural landscape, advertising dollars continue to distort the market by creating perverse incentives, encouraging the production of irresistibly clickable content.” Taylor describes this cultural landscape as an “attention economy.” Defining at least two of the following terms in your response, describe what is circulating in this economy: “e-waste” (183), “reputation silos” (190), “native advertising” (194), “tastemakers” (203). [Tag this post as “Hybrid Assignment 04”]. (300-350 words)

Digital Media is very complicated when it comes to our relationship to copyright. So much information and knowledge is passed through digital media that ownership becomes very blurry. In reading the first few pages of chapter 5 of Taylor’s book, the author herself had issues with copyright when her documentary was pirated and posted online. She explained the costs in making the documentary and how her film being pirated may actually take money out of her pocket. It is a valid concern. The people who pirated the documentary also made a valid point. So who’s right in this situation? This example is a little more complicated because if you are actually making a documentary to spread knowledge to people you must know sooner or later this is going to be a work that is used as an educational reference.

Another example of the complexity of our relationship to copyright is the billions of people who have access to the internet and to digital media. How can you police that many people if they’ve stolen someone’s copyright. Of course there are laws in place but to catch every single offender would be too large a task. As a 2011 report to the UK government noted in the chapter, “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 vide from one device to another.”

Copyright protection is trying to get better with things like content ID systems and Digital Rights Management software but it’s still a heavy burden for the copyright owner. There are those who create content who may not be able to afford this protection. A lot of times artists take chances with their work being pirated leaving them with no guarantee of a financial gain. And some, if not most, only hope that their art can provide for themselves and their families.

This topic particularly is intriguing to me because I aspire to be an entertainment attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property Law.  I believe that digital media is complicating our relation to copyright and bad things are happening to intellectual property because the laws have not yet caught up to the ever growing world of technology and digital media that exist today.  There are so many copyright infringements that are happening today with digital media, and laws are not protecting the authors of the property because there is so much “networked amateurism” that prevents the laws from protecting the property of those who are unaware.

In Chapter 5: “The Double Anchor”,  Taylor explains how; “we are moving from a creative economy of scarcity to one of abundance”, which simply means that creativity is null and void and that everything that is posted online is copied, sold, exchanged, traded, and duplicated for capital gain and profit.  Taylor also explains that “creative work is available without limit, freely accessible; it tends also to become free of charge”.  Therefore, it is unfortunate for the creator of works such as photos, literature, art and song, if the work is used freely and liberally without protection.  Digital media is complicating copyright laws because of the gross infringement of works that are not protected because laws have not been set in place to protect the author.  It’s unfair and unjust because works are being bought and sold while the creator gets nothing in return.

In an article posted for “Wired.com” by Vitalli Soldatenko entitled: “Copyright and Intellectual Property: Change is Coming” Soldatenko explains that “Our current intellectual property system benefits corporations by complicating the process of protecting the rights of content creators. In an era where opportunities and innovations abound our system is almost a tragic comedy.”  He also thinks that we are moving in the direction where authors’ works will be protected, and we can move forward as business and consumer without the complications of creator content being compromised.  However, today while the internet has made our lives easier, it certainly has made it a lot more complicated because big corporation benefits and we are lost in this paradox of having things made easy without looking at how and why.

In my hybrid assignment #3: Chapter 2, I defined “Networked Amateurism”.  My understanding of “Networked Amateurism” is that as a generation, we are all connected, as we network through social media and through computer platforms.  However, we are so unaware of the bigger picture, and amateurs at this game called Capital Strategy; that we fall short in knowing how the game is being played.  Therefore, we are deprived of the benefits that we think are actually gained by using the internet.  We are actually not the ones benefiting from what is being done online.  Capitalist are the skillful manipulators of how content is being seen and heard, while we (the amateurs) are the unskillful members of a world that is using us to network in ways that we are unaware of and being used for the purpose of profit and gain.