A great MDIA5003 blog

Archive for August, 2013

Sharing is Caring

This week’s topic is about intellectual rights and information exchanges.

The main point that I took from the lecture today is that the internet makes it really easy to copy/steal other people’s ideas and really difficult to prevent that from happening. Especially at the minute when I would argue, we’re still not quite sure what the internet is and what it’s role will be in 1, 5 and 10 years from now.

So, what will we use the internet for in future? (if we still use it at all). It seems unlikely that we won’t use it, but then again, remember these – once state of the art inventions?

Floppy disks

Anyway, a lot has been said about protecting intellectual property in the age of convergence, and it’s been said by people much more clever than me. Here is a link to one such article that I found really helped me to develop some ideas about this:

http://jmrc.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/File/The_Adaptive_Moment_Convergent_media1.pdf

I would like to focus this post on why I don’t think we can introduce strict laws around copyright online.

People have similar ideas all the time. Have you ever gone to say something and at the same time someone else has gone to say the exact same thing? Yes. It happens to everyone.

There are no new ideas. Whatever you produce is probably not so unique and special as you think it is – here’s why: 1. There’s a lot of stuff in the world, and something similar probably already exists without you even knowing about it, and 2. You probably found inspiration from other sources. That’s not a bad thing! Here’s a video about where good ideas come from, spoiler alert! It’s from other people (and you too, just watch it).

Therefore, I see the sharing of intellectual property as going both ways – it’s awesome to be able to find inspiration and ideas online that complement your own. The problem of course, is when someone takes your idea. If someone takes something you’ve produced with no interest in making money from it (e.g. they download your song for free) I think that’s a lot less of a problem compared to when someone takes it to (potentially) pass of as their own and make money from it.

So why do I think that taking something and not attempting to make money from it isn’t so bad? Everyone does it. And when everyone starts doing something, it gets to a stage where, instead of getting everyone to stop – it’s easier to just accept it. Now, I don’t necessarily mean that musicians, artists, writers, and anyone who creates anything should just expect to never get paid ever again, I mean that the way things are done will change. We are already seeing this with crowdfunding, and with musicians putting on more shows and making their money that way.

Here’s a link to Amanda Palmer’s TED talk – The Art of Asking. She covers some similar ideas.

The last thing I will talk about on this topic is creative commons (you can find out more here: http://creativecommons.org.au/about) or just watch this video:

I think creative commons licensing is a fantastic way to acknowledge that things in terms of copyright are changing and what you create can no longer be protected in the same ways it has been previously. Creative commons is an excellent example of the fact that people want their work to be shared or remixed and changed into something else. Leonardo da Vinci once said ‘art is never finished, only abandoned’, that might have been true in Leo’s time. When he put down his paintbrush and walked away that was pretty much it, no-one else could come along later with their paintbrush and their own ideas and change it into something else, it would have been an outrage, but now, with creative commons licensing, they can do that, in fact it’s encouraged. With creative commons, art never needs to be abandoned again, it can continue to be remodeled into something new.

Lastly I’ll just finish off with a video (yes, another video) of a collaborative art piece which demonstrates that through collaboration, a big idea can be created, I also think it’s interesting that they refer this back to the internet – a space where collaboration can occur to create bigger and better things.

Predicting the Future

This week we are talking about ‘News Business Online’ which means using words like ‘convergence’ and ‘platforms’ and talking about ‘the new media landscape.’ The main article for this week is ‘News 2.0?’ It talks about a predicted future for 2015. To be honest, I’m kind of over having to predict the future when we talk about news and new media.

Therefore, this week I will be putting on my negativity hat and purchasing one ticket to the dystopian future thank you very much.

dystopia (1)
(http://joannaparypinski.com/2012/01/22/welcome-to-your-dystopian-future/)

My first problem with these predictions for the future is that we have this idea that because we see something going a certain way, we think ‘yeah that will pretty much continue going along like that.’ Maybe the internet won’t be popular in a few years time, maybe social media was just a phase, maybe we will start heading back the way we came and people will go back to relying on newspapers for information, or communicating by drawing on cave walls. You might be thinking ‘that’s pretty unlikely.’ But why is everyone so sure that things will just keep running in a straight line?

In these ‘predictions’ it usually involves some sort of future where citizen journalists are the flavour of the day and what we currently consider ‘journalists’ are old hat, and things we learn about in museums (assuming we still have them). But journalists aren’t just things, easily replaced by technology. Journalists ask questions. Questions that the ‘ordinary person’ might not think to ask, and even if they do, might not then want to investigate further. If we are continuing on the ‘everything will just continue in a straight line’ theory, I don’t foresee a future where journalists don’t exist. Here’s a link to an article that suggests a possible list for telling who is a journalist:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-kent/whos-a-journalist-closing_b_4033856.html I believe that this demostrates that there is still a significant and seperate role for journalists.

Another problem I have with these predictions is society’s faith in the ‘ordinary masses.’ This predicted future might work in a future where everyone is an academic, but a lot of people make up the world, and a fair few ‘ordinary people’ tend to have this quality where they take everything they see, read and hear, at face value. Looking at my Facebook feed, the rubbish that gets shared and passed off as ‘news’ and ‘real’ is worrying. Not everyone has the ability to research, think critically, question, investigate, perform a Google search or visit http://snopes.com/.

‘Ordinary people’ need some sort of guidance, they need quality journalism so they have something to tweet, and retweet and share. Because the ‘average person’ is either lazy or busy, other than a Google search, they aren’t going to go and research something they want to know more about.

Many of my favourite novels are set in a dystopian future. And in these novels, there’s always an underlying issue that society has ceased to function in a way it should because people have stopped questioning things. The government tells them something, and they believe it. In Fahrenheit 451 people believe books are dangerous, they don’t question the way things are. That’s because at some stage, they lost the ability. (You can access the novel here: http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/murat.goc/451.pdf)

The future of news can both encourage that ability, and take it away. We are more connected to the world than we have ever been, and we can question things, so easily by looking it up online. But not everything that is online is necessarily true. That’s where journalists come in. It is more important than ever to have journalists providing ‘the ordinary people’ with the truth. If we begin believing everything we read, we begin sharing everything we think we know, and that’s dangerous. Journalists need to be asking questions and finding answers on behalf of everyone so that everyone has access to quality, timely, news. Not just re-shared stories.

My main point is that, yes, news consumers behaviours are changing, but that does not mean journalists will become any less important. This has been a pretty intense post, so now I’m going to include an award winning ad about quality journalism, while the citizens encourage debate, it is the journalists who dig deeper to find that there’s more to the story than it seems on the surface.

There’s a lot to think about here, hopefully it has provided some food for thought. I’ll finish with a quote from Fahrenheit 451, just to give you a little more to think about.

‘We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?’

Meikle, G (2009), ‘News 2.0?’ in Interpreting News, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 170-195