Copy Rights & Wrongs

Copyright laws have always been a tricky thing for me to wrap my head around. I recall when I first heard that the song "Happy Birthday" was a copyrighted commodity, and royalties had to be paid whenever it appeared in television shows or films. Surely we need some form of copyright laws to protect those who earn a living off of their intellectual property, but it seems like a difficult (if not impossible task). Current copyright laws seem to function on a number of arbitrary factors (the years that something can be private domain etc...).

Jenkins and Deuze describe the Internet as a place of "remix" and "remix ability". With forms of participatory media, and the rich web of intertextuality found in web 2.0 media, copyright laws seem nearly impossible to enforce. You Tube videos thrive off of building upon the material of others. 

Hip-hop culture seems to be an early adapter to the more lax approach in copyright laws and it seems to have only enhanced the richness of the genre. The system may have to completely dissolve and restructure before copyright laws can function realistically in this changing digital landscape. As tedious as "case by case" rulings will be in determining copyright infringement, the court systems are built on precedent, and if the systems broken, it needs to be rebuilt. 

Fulfilled by the Guild

Before "World of Warcraft" was conceived it was simply "War Craft". It had an online element but for the most part it was a level based game, complete with cinema scenes, the ability to control armies, and of course ambitions of conquest. I grew up playing War Craft, a game that was somewhat popular but still had a relatively small following (at least compared to World of Warcraft). The difference between the two games can be summed up in a single word, community.

This discerning difference, and the lynch pin on which the success of World of Warcraft rests is community. It isn't about the quests, or the battles, (sure it may have started that way). But the sense of belonging and community that people experience within their guilds is every bit as real as the relationships we cultivate in more traditional settings. It stands to reason, the elements that form a lasting and meanigful human relationship aren't our physical features or necessarily contingent on physical interactions, to being able to interact and communicate through a computer and forge friendships that may span the globe is exciting and impactful to say the least. These emerging trends in social interaction may be scoffed by some social scientists but the fact remains that these are the result of technological advancements, and represent the future of human interaction.

Don’t Shoot the “Instant” Messenger

In any given discussion over emergent forms of social media, it seems that people firmly side with one of two opinions. The first opinion in this dichotomy explores the dangerous that may arise due to the anonymous nature of the Internet. This school of thought seems to believe that when human beings aren’t being closely monitored acts of sexual deviance or cyber bullying are an inevitable result. The more optimistic stance on social media seems to believe that the global network allows for an evolved level of communication as a result of constant connectivity.

The notion of social media as a portal that facilitates deviant behavior does have some merit, as does the concept of social media as an expansion of human communication, and an inevitable evolution of personal relationships. The point that we sometimes miss when debating both of these sides, is that social forms of media are really only vessels for human thoughts, feelings, and expressions. While it is true that anonymity might cultivate dormant deviant behavior in those select few that might be prone to it, the media certainly didn’t create it, anymore than it created human communication. These new forms of social media should be thought of not as alternate realities, but extensions of our current societies that allow more flexible communication in regards to time and space.

Every new form of media begins with a learning curve, and there are always those who will take advantage but our innovation and technological progressions are fuelled by the human instinct to socialize and communicate, the Internet is merely tool.

I'll Ask the Audience

One of the major shifts that society has experience as a result of increased reliance on social forms of media, is the notion of what constitutes and “expert” and who is qualified to articulate and transmit information. Web-sites that are a result of social construction (such as wikipedia) may not be peer reviewed and may lack the classical qualifications of what we might traditionally consider to be a valid source of information and yet they seem to be used more and more as sources to gather and distribute information. This active participation that allows citizens to contribute over the Internet is a revolutionary change in social engineering. Having a database with millions of contributor’s results in a global collective of shared information. Accuracy of the information is certainly a major concern with social media outlets such as blogs or Wikipedia, but with so many active users patrolling these highly trafficked web pages, fallacies are often addressed or exposed through sheer volume of participants.

Using the Internet, as a global database of information was a benchmark moment in the “information age”, having such a high level of active participation contributing to this global consciousness is an unparalleled social occurrence. An audience that spent their entire lives as passive receivers of media is not active participants without asking for anything in return. Amazing.

Fairy Tale Face Lifts

The puzzling debate over what really defines intellectual property has been raging for what seems like an eternity. Certainly having access to the Internet and being part of a global society makes everyone much more aware of how difficult (if not impossible it is to be original). The thought that any idea I may come up with has more than likely been conceived of millions of times before is enough to make someone never want to leave their bed in the morning. Obviously we do need certain laws to protect intellectual property when large sums of money are at stake, but where do we draw the line and who gets to draw it?

If Disney is allowed to sue for the unauthorized use of their stories or images, then how come nobody has sued Disney for their appropriations of classic fairy tales such as Snow White, Robin Hood, The Princess and the Frog (just to name a few). Does turning the character of Robin Hood into a fox really constitute a significant enough change to escape laws the guarded intellectual property (if that were the case then I wouldn't be facing a cease and desist charge over the syndication of my character "Marvin Mouse"). 

Presently, copyright laws only protect content for a certain number of years, after a while these timeless classics become public property, but do these laws really provide a conducive environment for fostering creativity, and free expression? Or do these laws only protect the established and wealthy, undermining and stifling any budding artistic endeavors of those with shallow pockets?