Our future...

According to Jenkins (2004), media convergence fundamentally outlines the process of content flow across media platforms, and the relationship between media technologies, industries and audiences.

Convergence is a vital aspect of life in the digital era. Our mobile phones have gone way past the basic function of calling and texting, they now serve as our cameras, GPS systems, and computers. The transportability and spreadability of this digital information has enormously affected the way we consume content and use our 'everyday' technologies. 

The idea of the "prosumer" or "produser" is another interesting aspect of our digital age. These terms describe how the internet can be a medium for both producing and consuming media content. Blogs, online magazines and youtube video channels have diminished the need for specializations in print, broadcast or online industries, requiring today's qualified media content producers to have a broad knowledge of a variety of media platforms. As Deuze (2007) notes, "the blurring of real or perceived boundaries between makers and users in an increasingly participatory media culture challenges consensual notions of what it means to work in the cultural industries."

So as production and distribution costs of content are lowered (Jenkins, 2004) and the amount of produser/prosumer content available online continually increases, what will happen to the professionalism of the media industry?

I know that many of my friends have stopped buying newspapers and magazines in order to get stories from online sources for free, both accredited and from produsers. Instead of watching television, a night might be spent searching for YouTube clips. Is this the path that new technologies and convergence is leading us down? I’ll be interested to hear any stories of how you think this might affect us and our careers in the future. 

Deuze, M. (2007) Convergence culture in the creative industries, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 10/2, 243-263.

Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7/1, 33-43.

A world without copyright?

Copyright has a cultural purpose; it motivates artists by enabling them to profit from their work, and prevents others from exploiting them for their own profit. But as Ted explained in our lecture, modern copyright law is becoming increasingly out of touch with the way artists of all sorts communicate with their audiences. The digital era we are currently in has provided us with the opportunity to become produsers; reproducing and distributing digital work extremely cheaply, and to a high quality. It would seem that copyright and intellectual property laws would be more important than ever due to the simplicity of exploiting artists work.

This thinking, however, goes against Stewart Brand’s “information wants to be free” argument and underestimates the extent of the cultural changes we are living through.  Because of the enormity of the internet, and the global markets that are a consequence of this, the modern problem for artists is not about protecting their work, but more about ensuring it is visible. In this economy of abundance, artists must be prepared for the fact that if they are not willing to give away their work for free, someone else will. So is copyright still enforceable? And does a world without copyright mean a world without incentive for creativity?

I really don’t think it does. From an historical perspective, we may note that the concept of private intellectual property rights has traditionally been absent from most cultures, yet there has always been artists who have created and performed works.  In the digital age, the eradication of copyright laws would enable an interesting production of creativeness, with people finding inspiration, themes, or certain forms of expression in works previously produced, both long ago and recently.  Girl Talk is a noteworthy case study of this. His music is entirely created through remixes of other people’s music, so does he breach copyright laws? And for an even better question… should he?

I do think some sort of regulation should be implemented, as you can see in the below Gotye documentary, artists work so hard to be unique and they definitely deserve to reap the rewards from the work they put in. But as you can also see in the documentary, artists as individual as Gotye still source inspiration from past creations, possibly breaching copyright. How far should lending and borrowing of inspiration go before the law should step in? And will our creative culture suffer if we do move into a world without copyright?

Thoughts very much welcome.

Welcome to the 'weisure' network!

What ever happened to compartmentalizing our lives so that we could ‘switch off’ and enjoy our leisure time after we finish our traditional nine to five jobs? The industrial age has gone and we are left with a communication economy that that blurs the line between work and lesuire more than ever, and this is not only accepted, but expected. Why?

Mobile technology has made it possible for people complete work outside of office workers, thus creating an obligation workers feel the need to fill. Gregg discussed a concept called the ‘function creep,’ where employees would prefer to finish off work tasks at home in order to 'keep ones sanity' while at work, but accessing work in unpaid circumstances has created a situation in which too much is expected. This social shift of expectation in the workplace has created problems of self-blame due to the responsibility employees now feel to be constantly ‘wired to work’.

After reading this weeks readings, I have several ponderings. Should the advancements in technology encourage us to converge work with leisure? And more importantly, should we feel pressured to relentlessly have one eye on the ball when it comes to work?

As we increasingly use our phones, laptops, and other mobile technologies for leisure, it’s becoming more common for us to just ‘quickly check our emails,’ but my next question is, can we find this elusive balance? I believe that finding the balance between work and leisure is going to be the key for workers’ sanity’s all over the networked globe. I would find it difficult to switch off completely from my physical work space and not even have the option to check emails and finish that report, however, I do not have any problem with keeping my spare time open for leisure activities and seeing friends and family. As with everything, balance is necessary…so I suppose my last statement here can be; thank God we have grown up multi-tasking! 

3. Too much of a good thing?

I found John Barlow’s article, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace", absolutely fascinating this week. I really enjoyed feeling the passion that can be extracted from it, however, despite Barlow’s enthusiasm and absolute belief in his argument, I can’t quite come to grips on accepting the idealistic situation he illustrates.

Barlow describes cyberspace as "the new home of the mind, which grows itself through collective actions". It “consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.”

I love this definition, and the idea that humans have created this amazing industry based on these intangible qualities. Kelly says that “as tremendous as the influence of financial inventions have been, the influence of network inventions will be as great, or greater,” and I agree. The Internet has changed the way humans live their lives, but can too much of a good thing turn bad?

Despite Barlow’s optimism, I believe that our cyberspace needs some sort of control and regulation, where this line should be drawn is a question for another time. Laws and regulations are already having difficulty keeping up with the pace the Internet is growing, and we need these laws to help address the myriad of problems (including privacy, security, and copyright) that come hand in hand with entering cyberspace. Will we ever be able to manage Internet regulation? Or are we going to spin out of control with too much information, too much freedom?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Em

Beware Of The Sniffer Worm!

So last week the lovingly titled ‘Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011’ was passed through US legislation. This law requires Internet Service Providers to retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses for 18 months. This made me think about the ‘Sniffer Worm’ theory that Lessig discusses in his chapter “Four Puzzles From Cyberspace.”

Lessig explores how the online world, or ‘cyberspace,’ is evolving much faster than our laws, and muses the numerous dilemmas and gray areas that exist due to the Internet now, and probably in the future.
Lessig alludes to the idea that further regulation of Internet usage would be a positive thing, and that the “innocent have nothing to fear.” I am not entirely sure how comfortable I am with this Big Brother approach, even if it doesn’t “interfere with ordinary life.”

Giving any Government the power to ultimately monitor and collect data about us in this exceedingly efficient manner is a dangerous move, even if they only intend to use the information for good. To support this argument I’m going to compare the idea of the worm to the recent British phone hacking scandal. Similar to the phone hacking scandal, the victim (yes, I have purposely used the word ‘victim’) doesn’t know that they are being listened to or having their records searched, creating an invasion of privacy. Can we really try and use the argument that this probe is fine and appropriate just because there is no burden on the individual searched?

I agree that there should be some sort of regulation on the internet, but I don’t have an answer to where this line should be drawn. I pose these ponderings to my fellow bloggers;

Do you agree with the ‘sniffer worm’ theory? That having the Government secretly probing into people’s computers is OK — with or without warrants. If we are innocent and are oblivious to the probe, thus avoiding harm and embarrassment — should we care? And does anyone have an answer to Internet regulation, or is there even an answer that will keep up with the pace of technological change?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Em

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-newscorp-quickguide-idUSTRE76H5SA20110718

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.01981: