Oil Sands Connun-drum

All rights to the video belong to Al Jazeera. In no way am I affiliated with Al Jazeera nor do I reflect any of their views. The remixing of this video is for non-profit, academic purposes only. My thanks to Al Jazeera.

Copyrights vs. Culture: How to beat down the big guys

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?

There are two generic problems currently facing the prospect of a robust and freely accessible cultural commons. The first is to justify appropriate copyright reform. Restrictive copyright laws have taken most of the Western world by storm over the last couple of decades. We must figure out how to roll them back and open up more possibilities for the development of a vast and venerable cultural commons. The second problem lies in encouraging more contribution to the cultural commons. Although we are said to be in an age of "producer-consumers" most of those who partake in online activities merely consume. Both issues can be addressed in a couple of ways.

Justifying appropriate copyright reform is no easy task. As mentioned above, many of these laws have been in place for decades or otherwise have been decades in the making. In order to get any government to listen to the ideas of the "culture-as-commons" viewpoint we must introduce valid economic arguments.

In 2004, Henry Jenkins showcased that media convergence is more than simply a technological shift. The relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres, and audiences have been definitively altered. Is this a bad thing? No. Economically, there really is no basis in the claims of many big industries.

There is seemingly no empirical evidence showcasing that drops in revenue in particular industries are a result of free or illegal access to certain products. Other reasons as to why revenue is supposedly falling in areas like CD and DVD sales do exist. Competing forms of entertainment, such as video games and social networks are important cogs in the growing mass-market of interactivity. These platforms are seemingly replacing - or, at worst, attempting to - more dated forms of entertainment like music and movies.

An aging demographic does not help the issue. As our country and other Western countries grow older there is less of a market for modern cultural products, music especially. Older constituents simply have no desire to purchase churned out pieces of "culture" that do not appeal to them. The shrinking youth population still wants these new forms of entertainment, but the market for culture seems to go with the demographic.

Extensive copyright laws can also hinder the long-term economic growth potential of the economy. By limiting access to the creative works of talented individuals, as Kirby Ferguson puts forth in his instructional videos, we are denying the fact that "everything is a remix" - if not denying, we are willingly suppressing the potentially infinite cultural endeavours of those who wish to contribute to the commons.

By enforcing such restrictive copyright laws we are encouraging the production of below average cultural products. Producers in music, movie, and television industries will know that they will generate at least some return on investment no matter how poor the quality may be. This reinforces a poor level of cultural commons in the economy, inhibiting current and future economic growth potential in the process.

Besides simply showcasing the crippling economic effect of restrictive copyright laws, we must also encourage contribution to the cultural commons. This is also traditionally not an easy thing to accomplish. Many people consumer what is produced on the Internet and in various other forms of cultural entertainment but very few actually contribute themselves.

A classmate of mine indicates, that it might be the "constant stream of information" that prevents us from contributing more ourselves. It is not that we are discouraged to participate; in fact, Youtube constantly encourages us to "like" and comment on videos. It is that we are encouraged to continually consume which, in effect, reducing the amount of time or effort we could put in to producing content ourselves. It is a fantastic point and quite eye-opening.

Continuing along the same vein, another classmate - Raymond - outlines his nostalgic experience watching old Simpsons clips on Youtube. Although this may seem rather benign, there is an important parable taken that builds upon the point of over-consumption and under-production. We enjoy these remixes as they can evoke even the most remote of emotions. However, if we continue to enjoy consuming cultural content so much that we have no incentive to produce any ourselves the quality will eventually deteriorate.

Teresa Rizzo's article study solidifies and consolidates the importance of my classmates' contribution to this discussion. She attributes an exhibitionist tendency to those who produce cultural content. I might add that most people today do not possess such traits and exude more of a voyeuristic tendency. Most enjoy watching, reading, and listening to the products of others instead of producing content themselves.

One way to encourage contribution is to allow a participatory effect. Sites like Youtube use a rating system which allows users to grade the level of cultural content which eventually procures a more robust commons in the process. Another way is to utilize the concept of a profile. Companies like Facebook and Twitter allow people to display their online personalities however they deem appropriate. By instituting profiles on the sites that host the desired cultural content, more users will be encouraged to participate online.

Keeping away negativity is also relatively important for sites to attract more producers. Most people are prone to the theory of loss aversion; most people prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. Thus, many are afraid to contribute online due to a fear of rejection or insult. Sites like Youtube are rife with abusive comments. By reducing or removing these negative stigmas surrounding online participation, more online constituents will contribute.

Ostensibly, the entire purpose of the "culture-as-commons" viewpoint is to promote free and easy access to cultural products in order to proliferate the production of remixes. Yet, providing economic incentives - as in monetary rewards - for those who go above and beyond the call of duty, producing something brilliant, will spring novel, intelligent ideas to the forefront of modern culture.

I think we all like the sound of that.

First image created by user: Stuart Miles, www.freedigitalphotos.net
Second image created by user: FrameAngel, www.freedigitalphotos.net

My Exploitation of Online Content - And its Validity

On any given morning - weekends especially - the first thing I do is turn on my laptop and visit certain websites that have piqued my interest over the years.

Critically recognized American newspapers like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post are usually first on my list. Next would come the Canadian nationals, The Globe and Mail, and - unfortunately, the only other national newspaper - The National Post. Then I will most likely venture into more regional territory with papers like The Toronto Star and the St. Catharines Standard.

Sometimes I will stop there, deeming my leeching need for news all but satiated. However, other times I will peruse the websites of some of my favourite magazines. Opinion pieces and long-form journalism are abound in both Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. Magazines like The Economist, Money, and Time are always informative and to-the-point. No journey is complete without stops at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and Golf Digest.

I seemingly access websites like YouTube and Twitter multiple times throughout the day. "Following" the twitter accounts of those newspapers and magazines mentioned above allows me quick and easy access to myriad articles of choice. Extensive, and more importantly, free (access to the websites of The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, and The Los Angeles Times are restricted by paywalls, however these are easy enough to get around) I exploit the Internet for information everyday.

Even more, I choose not to contribute or produce anything myself for two simple reasons: I do not possess the skills nor the desire to pursue the production of online content for marketable purposes (the only truly driving force behind the purpose of a nearly-graduated student).

We can see though the article by Toby Miller that labour often goes unrewarded in the online cultural commons. Miller avows that 'creative industries' are not panaceas for economic problems and gifts to cultural studies. Labour does play an important role both in the consumption and purpose of cultural content. Websites like PirateBay and the spectacularly named KickAssTorrents allow anyone access to free downloads of movies, television shows, eBooks and more. These are websites that help end-users exploit the control that "big media" looks to assert over online cultural content.

For Miller it is not necessarily a question of "big media" exploits but the exploits of the labour being endured by innovators around the world. This is a fair question and an important one in economic and remuneration terms. However, for me, as long as I have access to free content I will never pay for the same or similar content no matter how arduous the input of labour may have been; sound economics.

Lev Manovich's notion that we build our worlds and identities around readily available mass produced goods by using differing tactics is easily applicable to my use of both the Internet and the cultural commons that inhabits it. Manovich believes that the true challenge may lie in the constant innovation, energy, and unpredictability of the Web 2.0 Culture. As long as these dynamics remain the dynamics I look forward to more exploitation and indolence with regard to my online experience.

Image created by user: tungphoto, www.freedigitalphotos.net

Does commercial or government mediation affect the way we communicate?

Like most events in our day-to-day lives, the way we communicate today is tinted through interventionist government and profit-seeking capitalists. Like most events in our day-to-day lives, we don't really care. We shouldn't care. The youth of today seem oblivious and adults willingly deem it irrelevant. The future holds more of the same, and maybe that is a good thing. We do not feel a need to communicate through modern mediums; we want to.

The mediums through which the products of communication are consumed seem unimportant to today's youth. For Scott Cambell and Yong Jin Park, this mobile youth culture persists through a desire for enhanced personal autonomy. Thoughts of bourgeoisie exploitation and government surveillance generally fail to sway fledgling consumers. My classmate Hana places a strong emphasis on the theme of convenience. Along a similar argument, another classmate, Christian, notes how quickly mobile devices have shifted from luxuries to necessities. Cambell and Park believe that mobile communication devices help configure momentous social development in the lives of youth today. These devices procure a kind of identity formation that might otherwise be unattainable. The ways in which they are used or exploited simply do not matter.

For those of us who are aware of the activities of both government and commercial interests in the industry, we should think the same way. The consumption of mobile communication devices is no different than the consumption of other topical commodities. As Gerard Goggin outlines, we are subject to the wills of major transnational global mobile media corporations who premise their models on the dominant interest of commercial industry. Like the consumption of most other commodities, we as consumers have little say in the end product. Yes, transnational corporations conduct the necessary market research and apply the same value-added activities as they have always attempted to do, all in the name of pleasing the consumer. Yet, with the aptly-advertised consumer choice models, we are led to believe that we have control in the production of mobile devices. We do not. What we do have control of is how we use these devices and all that comes with them.

What I have stated before, will continue to state, and what Fabio Josgrilberg echoes is that: what one does with a mobile phone is not separated from how he or she projects him or herself in life. Multiple dimensions of communication now exist and pervade our lives everyday, but it is ultimately how we use these dimensions and what we do with them that showcases how we really feel. Action is character. Everyday we see hundreds of fellow consumers buried in their cell phones, tablets, and laptops. Do they seem to care about commercial or government mediation in their efforts to communicate? Of course not. What people say or think is different from what they do. You may know someone who boycotts products sold by a certain company because of exploitative practices in their factories in Cambodia. You may even do so yourself. Good for you. You are not the majority. For the majority, the corporation is king. For our industry, developers are king and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Developers hold the culture of the future in the palms of their hands, passing it into the palms of ours. Using Apple as the preeminent example, Goggin calls these developers cultural intermediaries, stating that: in its consumption, the iPhone sees the mobile phone take on more and quite novel everyday uses. Important to Goggin and important to the future is the developing market for applications. The developers of applications, or "apps", are emerging as key players in an ever-evolving industry. Apps allow us to track nearly everything we do and with more ease than ever before. They allow us to do the things we want faster, easier, and more inclusively. Like any other market, the market for apps is subject to the laws of supply and demand. It searches for profit first, community interest second. We know this. These commercial interests do not and should not reduce or restrict our consumption of communication devices.

My classmate Raymond showcases an inquisitiveness as to what the future of mobile devices will hold. My answer is that the future will contain more of the present. The technology will change. It will adapt to holding bigger, more powerful devices embodied in smaller, more convenient mediums. We will be able to do more in less time and with less effort. Yet, the way we think about mobile devices and services will remain the same. We will continue to turn a blind eye to commercial or government mediation, disallowing any effect on the way we use these devices. Freedom has its price; at least we are free. We do not need to communicate, we want to.

Image created by user: jscreationzs, www.freedigitalphotos.net