Already, a number of legal issues have been raised by the Internet and the introduction of networked ICTs. Terry Flew argues in his book, that these issues are enormous in their scope, domain of application and the implications for different individuals and groups in society are unprecedented. Just some areas affected by the boom in cyberspace business and development include education (including plagiarism, cyber-bullying and internet filtering), privacy and security, freedom of information (including freedom of expression and ‘online indecency’), and aruguably the most important intellectual property issues (including copyright and online exchange).
As Flew states copyright and intellectual property has become the crucible for many of the issues and challenges presented by the development of new media and policy. In particular, the balance between individual rights of ownership and social use for common benefit along with knowledge as a commodity, generates a significant problem when it comes to existing legal frameworks.
Bruns describes the benefits of turning such knowledge and information into products, and thus artefacts; and clearly we have begun to see the popularity and economic viability of such new business production models (as seen in last weeks post). Yet he also describes the ultimate paradox: an industry that continues to surge ahead, and a law that remains stagnant.
Currently, copyright and intellectual property law in Australia (and more importantly globally), privilege the original owners of content and provides ‘disincentives against the open sharing of knowledge’. In other words, as the current law stands, it is in direct conflict with a number of new media theories and principles.
Such a conflict is no more evident than in both the games and music industries, albeit in very different ways. Games companies have begun to actively encourage user-generated content, by providing fans with the necessary tools (if they don’t already have them) to update, re-organise and re-create sections, if not the whole, of games for the Internet, PC, or consoles. However, games companies retain all copyright to such modding developments and are blatantly exploiting dedicated users.
The music industry is, instead of encouraging user-generated content, fighting it with all they’ve got. Music piracy is a huge problem for the industry which refuses to adapt to new business production models. However there are some visionaries who are paving a way for the future. Indaba Music is a site that allows users to create their own music, and then add it on to another piece and so on, thus creating original music. Also, the Black Eyed Peas new album, The E.N.D, will come with the software for users to remix, re-cut and re-distribute pre-existing material. However, these gimicks are still being employed within a legal framework that fails to keep up.
The very nature of law is incompatiable to the fast paced advancements of technologic revolution. It takes a long time for governments to draft, present and approve new laws and for policy to shape judges decisions. We have seen some possible future for the law of copyright, for example Creative Commons, however it remains to be seen whether the pre-existing legal frameworks will manage to get in touch with the needs of today’s technologically savvy society.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Tags: Bruns, copyright, Creative Commons, Flew, future, intellectual-property
The Implications of Pro-Ams
Creativity is now the decisive source of competitive advantage. In virtually every industry the winners in the long run are those who can create and keep creating. Creativity has come to be the most highly prized commodity in our economy - and yet it is not a commodity; creativity comes from people – Richard Florida
The effects of the current global economic crisis are far reaching and few will escape its mark. It would be fitting then, to now turn our attentions to the economic and social implications of open-source software and the collaborative practices of new media users. Although a relatively new concept for media academics, professional amateurs (aka pro-ams) have begun making their mark as economically viable participants in the new knowledge economy. Charles Leadbeater has written extensively on the subject and argues that ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ matter for a number of reasons, three of which I consider particularly relevant in our current economic situation. The publication I have focused on is entitled The Pro-Am Revolution.
1. Jobs and Growth
In a time of economic crisis, job loss is a major concern for many individuals. Sources of economic wealth are in a state of flux, along with the economic foundations of society. New media opportunities are plentiful and are now a feasible form of creating jobs and growth for the economy. Leadbeater suggests that pro-ams are playing an increasing role in business innovation and that employers should be encouraged to provide people nearing a career change with time off work for Pro-Am development. Helping people develop their shadow Pro-Am career should make it easier for people to cope with the loss of a job – particularly useful in a time of financial strife.
2. A New Model of Work and Creative Production
Representing a clear diversion from the stable, hierarchical, mass production industrial economy, new economies are dynamic, networked and flexible – businesses built on the commercial application of creativity. Services are increasingly customized and knowledge, as an intangible asset, is becoming more practicable than material goods. In such a volatile economy, this new model of work and production is crucial and fits seamlessly with new media theory – ‘amateurs have a long track record of innovation, especially in emerging fields which are too young for there to be an organized and professional body of knowledge or too marginal to warrant the attention of companies or universities’.
3. Social Cohesion
A fractured economy does not have to lead to a splintered society. Professional amateurs help to build social capital and nurture a sense of belonging. Open-source software, typical of Web 2.0, is inseparable from network-based media where sharing ideas, continued collaboration and risk taking, all typify the communities that are involved. Pro-Ams create strong bonds around their interests, but because these interests span different communities they can link people from very different walks of life.
Undoubtedly, we will feel the implications of the economic crisis for many years to come. All professionals will be affected by it and should take note of ways in which they can use new media to both harness and capitalize on their work and businesses. By ensuring that, as a society, we understand the importance of the shift from market-based to knowledge-based economies, Pro-Ams will continue to be both viable and vibrant players in a new, exciting and unprecedented economic climate for many years to come.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments
Tags: cultural-revolution, Florida, future, Leadbeater, new-economy, pro-ams, produsage
Wikipedia – An Online Utopia?
Thanks to Wikipedia, more knowledge is more available to more people than at any other time in history – Andrew Lih
If we are to believe the increasing number of Wikipedia evangelists, it is difficult to see how humanity survived thousands of years without it. If we are to believe Wikipedia’s sceptics, what is remarkable about it is not how accurate it is, but how inaccurate. However, if we are to believe the facts, Wikipedia is not the egalitarian encyclopedia that academics love to hate, but rather a cleverly nuanced, authoritarian product of (in the grand scheme of things) a few. In other words, Wikipedia is not the online Utopia we all thought it was.
Wikipedia’s rise to prominence is remarkable, yet as with many of its Web 2.0 counterparts, not surprising. The rate at which society is making it their responsibility to produce, organize and evaluate content in cyber space is at an all time high. Thus, according to Axel Bruns by harnessing collective intelligence, Wikipedia ‘necessitates a different approach to engaging with content and those who participate in creating, developing, extending, evaluating and policing that content’.
As Lih argues in his book The Wikipedia Revolution, ‘the principle of Wikipedia, in effect, is that the greater the number of interested editors who swarm on a given article, the more nearly the result will converge on accuracy’. This objective is intrinsically linked to one paradigm behind open-source software – fiddle with it, fix it a bit, share it. But who exactly is doing the fiddling, fixing and sharing?
Look closer and it is evident Wikipedia is riddled with loopholes that continue to allow the elitists to control and construct an encyclopedia that really does little to encompass ‘the other’. Of course, we are allowed to participate, but just as easily our contribution can be considered irrelevant. You need look no further than the About Wikipedia page to see how cleverly structured the site actually is, whilst exuding a facade of openess.
Sycophants proclaim that Wikipedia embraces open participation, communal evaluation and fluid heterarchies. They gush that all pages are open to editing, by anonymous or identified contributors. I agree that this is evident, however I claim that if we are to continue utilizing Wikipedia as a standout example of the open-source software movement, it needs to encompass more than three of its principles.
Although an encyclopedia should be free from bias and personal opinion, arguably the whole point of Web 2.0 and open source software is to celebrate the individual, as one of many. Produsage and collaborative intelligence pertain to create representations of knowledge, yet we continue to impose traditional censorship and more often than not, fall back on established heirarchies.
Humanity thrives on structure; without it anarchy would prevail – to little or no purpose. To ensure that Wikipedia is an intelligible, useful tool of collective work (which it undeniably is) we must recognize that structures are inevitable. It simply cannot be a wholly egalitarian and just process, because that simply is not how society works. As a reflection of our global community, Wikipedia continues to build a democratic, yet flawed road to the unobtainable Utopia.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Bruns, Lih, newmedia, pro-ams, produsage, Wikipedia
Typically society recognises three ‘estates’, the executive, the judiciary, the legislature, with each acting as a check and balance on the other. A fourth estate has since been introduced, the news, which supposedly fulfills the role as gatekeeper of all three. Today, in a highly volatile and media saturated environment, print and broadcast news has failed in its efforts to dissuade bias and report what matters, including the truth. In such a landscape, the arguments for the recognition of a fifth estate are more convincing than ever.
Citizen (noun): a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection
+
Journalism (noun): the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business
=
Citizen journalism (noun): is the concept of members of the public playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information
With the above definitions in mind, now consider the role of a citizen journalist. Media commentators have been trying to pigeonhole their role since the turn of the century – arguing for their importance as perpetual news casters, evaluators and gatewatchers. Of course where there is praise there is dissent, and not unlike other open source software, citizen journalists have their fair share of critics. On the most part though, media savvy society is embracing citizen journalism as a welcome alternative to the out-dated, industrial models still evident on our televisions, radios and in print and it’s failure as a proper mediator of the three estates.
Following the large scale movement from well established news sources and thanks to the democratic nature of current communications technologies, in particular Web 2.0 and open-source software, the increased ability of ‘ordinary citizens’ continues to break the hierarchical structures typical of established news providers. By moving political discourse into gradually more conversational and networked platforms, produsers are beginning to make a name for themselves as something more than just non-professionals with an opinion.
Bruns describes acts of citizen journalism as a corrective and a supplement to the output of commercial, industrial journalism, which clearly complements the argument for a fifth estate. It is undeniable that where traditional journalists are failing, people can now make their own voices and stories heard without following traditional channels. Consumption and production is becoming evermore cyclical and whilst established media outlets are trying to broaden their appeal, they fail to embrace the true nature of open-sourced collaboration and stick with traditional modules and frameworks.
Typical of the cultural chaos we find ourselves in, we need a more democratic way to discuss, debate and deliberate the news relevant to our everyday lives and communities. This is why it is essential that citizen journalists embrace their potential as the fifth estate. In my opinion, the blurring of distinctions between professional and non-professional news providers is inevitable. As we continue to become an ever-more networked and perhaps cynical society, so too will we continue to embrace new and exiting forms of journalism – providing us with the news and information we crave, rather than tried and true stories undermined by bias and lackluster journos.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Tags: Bruns, citizen-journalism, cultural-chaos, estate, future, newmedia, pro-ams, produsage
Produsage is one of the many buzz words in vouge at the moment that attempts to encompass the context of new and emerging concepts for describing the social, technological and economic environment of user-led content creation. Of course, as a concept produsage is significantly different from more traditional and established modes of production such as the industrial production model and more recently the prosumer model. The production value chain is no longer recognisable as a top-down hierarchical distribution method, instead becoming transformed into a seemingly endless string of users beginning and ending production with content. This all complements academic notions of the ‘hive mind’ and ‘collaborative intelligence’ as discussed by such professionals as Herz and Bruns.
What then are the advantages of such a system, and how does one evaluate such a nebulous and ever-changing experience? From the outset it is clear that produsage continues along the democratic path set up by Toffler’s argument concerning prosumers. However it is now clear that produsers are operating in a more democratic platform instead of the asymmetrical value chain purported by Toffler. Distribution and production opportunities are more available than ever, to more people than ever. This open participation provides opportunities for greater application of knowledge, greater quality control and greater socialisation and democratisation of production. The ad hoc nature of produser content furthers this. Also, the fact that almost anyone can become a produser of new content continues to break the established barriers of traditional hierarchical models – here it is seen that anyne with the skills to produce can, regardless of status, age, race, gender, class etc. These are just a few of the suppossed advantages of produsage.
The limitations of produsage are neither few nor insignificant. While some may argue that the limitations could also be seen as advantages it is clear that the limiting facts of such a production model are considerable and important. As a continuing process, produsgae fails to maintain quality all the time. As Bruns points out – gradual, probabilistic processes do not ensure against temporary reductions in quality as poor quality contributors are made by individual produsers, but over time the shared community resource is expected to improve in quality as long as such negative contributions are outweighed by the impact of a larger number of positive contributions. Thus quality is a time-consuming limitation of produsage. Another significant limitation is the true “openness” of this production model. It allows only people with the recognised skills and ability as well as the infrastructure, software and knowledge to be able to participate – thus excluding a large majority of the global population who have little to no access to such necessary tools. Furthermore, limitations include ownership and copyright concerns – if this is an onoing continuous process added to be a seemingly endless amount of participants who is entitled to reap the benefits at the end?
The implications of produsage at this stage of new media development are increasingly important. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered when evaluating the effectiveness and overall importance of produage content. As such, where does produsage go from here? How much more collaborative can we get? How far will produsers go?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Bruns, future, newmedia, pro-ams, produsage
