In my last post, I stated that I that my contributions to online
content are inhibited by self-doubt. I
am often plagued with the question, “Does what I have to say and how I say it
have any appeal and traction with anyone out there in the World Wide Web?” Some might say that if someone can post videos
of their cat falling into their toilet and get a ton of 'likes' then certainly
what I have to say on issues pertinent to me should have some truck with the
billion-or-so other consumers of online content. So just get over yourself. Point taken.
One concern that doesn’t dog me, however, is the origins of my ideas
and who might take them and build upon them.
I borrow frequently from items that I’ve read, seen or heard, on the
Internet and elsewhere. Working toward
my degree in adult education for the past decade and a bit, I know that
knowledge is constructed from many parts and pieces rather than magically
created. And, as a perpetual student, I’m
no stranger to citing work, giving credit where credit is due. As such, if someone can borrow my ideas to
further their own learning, well then, provided that they give acknowledgment, that’s
just fine by me. This is all just a part
of the learning process. We beg and borrow (and sometimes steal), and others do the same. In
the end we all benefit, no? Well not if
you’re in the business of creating
knowledge and culture, dependent on your ideas for making ends meet.
If someone takes your ideas, creates something similar (even if it is
better), and accepts tolls using your toil, this is a real problem. Not only are you out the profit from your
efforts, but you are less likely to come up with new ideas of your own in the
future. What’s the point if you’re just
going to lose out to someone who has the gift of grab? Therein lays the rub. How do you create an atmosphere where ideas
can be created and shared while protecting the rights of innovators to make a
buck from their creations? The answer,
for the past few hundred years has been copyright laws and the concept of
intellectual property. These allowed
innovators to stake their claim to their ideas, brand them as you would
livestock, something that told everyone, “Hey, this belongs to me. Move it along.
Eyes on your own paper.” But, in
the age of Internet ,the idea-soup is getting progressively murkier, more
stew-like than ever before, calling into question laws and concepts that have held
true for so long but now appear so last-millennium. This leads me to the question that we were
tasked with answering this week: How can
online communities of "producer-consumers" literate in new media work
toward building a robust and freely accessible cultural commons in the face of
restrictive copyright laws? Or, in keeping with my gastronomical metaphor, with
the info age upon us, where ideas, culture and information are accessible to
just about anyone, anywhere, how do you create a common pot where creativity and
innovation can simmer and brew without burning its contributors?
Henry Jenkins (2004), in the International Journal of Cultural Studies
describes the conundrum like this: “Thanks to the proliferation of channels and
the portability of new computing and telecommunications technologies, we are
entering an era where media will be everywhere and we will use all kinds of
media in relation to each other… Fueling this technological convergence is a
shift in patterns of media ownership. Whereas old Hollywood focused on cinema,
the new media conglomerates have controlling interests across the entire
entertainment industry” (p.34). So,
while technology is providing an avenue for cultural convergence across all
media, large multi-media companies are rapidly invading the cultural commons,
controlling it with restrictive laws and a phalanx of lawyers.
The cost of this control not only affects the little guy or gal trying
to produce and publish his or her own ideas.
It also has global implications.
As Toby Miller (2004) states: “Whereas culture has frequently permitted
the South a certain political and social differentiation, the ‘third world’ has
not been allocated a substantive role under the new arrangements [of the new
global economy] beyond providing a kind of anthropological avant-garde
laboratory for music, medication and minerals.
The costs of compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights divert money away from basic needs and towards
costly computer equipment and costly bureaucrats with the skills and resources
to evaluate and police copyright, trademarks and patents” (p. 59). The globalization of our economy, then, adds
a multinational flair to our creative stew.
In a recent blog post, my classmate, Ann, argues that the question that we were
tasked with answering this week is incredibly complex and fluid, making it
difficult to even wrap your head around much less answer. She contends that the question of how we work
toward building an accessible cultural commons in the face of restrictive
copyright laws would be better framed as: “How do we balance the right of
producers to be appropriately compensated for their work (not in perpetuity,
but to enable them to earn a living) against consumers who are increasingly
entitled regarding accessing material on the World Wide Web”. I agree that it is a question of
balance. And I would argue that this
constant push and pull, this perpetual teeter-totter of re-negotiating boundaries
can sometimes set the stage for creativity, if for no other reason than to ‘stick
it to the man’. “Innovation will occur on the fringes; consolidation in the
mainstream” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 35).
But I am also thinking that there is still validity to the question,
how do those of us who are producer/consumers of online content, through our
production and consumption practices, ensure that there are still fringe contributors
to the cultural stew (last food reference, I promise)? How do we ensure that those folks aren’t pureed
(okay, I lied) by the legions of litigators representing the multinational
media conglomerates? The answer to that question isn’t easily found
as the articles and blogs that I have referenced aptly attest. However, I think that there are some simple
tenets that we can follow to support the maintenance of a cultural commons. Contribute without payment and encourage
others to build on your ideas. Acknowledge
the sources of your ideas. And lastly, pay
for content when you can.
References:
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International
Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Image courtesy of chawalitpix, freedigitalphotos.net
No comments:
Post a Comment