When we share, who will care?

 

The Australian Copyright Act has had to adapt recently to accommodate developing technology and now deals with more contemporary and complex copyright issues such as those associated with the use of personal media. However, the new laws may fail to address the protection of legitimate copyrighted information on the internet – classified as news, satire and parody.

Dr Matthew Rimmer, The Australian National University, suggests that because information sharing websites like Wikipedia and YouTube have become important communication platforms, new legislation is needed to protect consumer access to information – as in the United States.

 

The ‘infringement’ case against the popular video sharing site, YouTube (by entertainment corporation Viacom in the US) is just one example of the complexity of internet copyright laws, and could eventually lead to significant repercussions for internet users in Australia.

 

Viacom filed a law suit demanding all of its content, such as clips from MTV and Comedy Central, be taken down from the online video sharing website, YouTube.

 

This is a continuing problem for Google and YouTube, but also Australian internet users. This is largely because commercial users find it more difficult to be classified as fair dealings under Australian law, especially comparative to the laws in the United States.

 

The Re-write of Copyright

The year 2006 saw the amendment of existing copyright laws in Australia. The Copyright Amendment Act was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, completing changes required through the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Specifically, the amendment toughened anti-circumvention laws; so that it is now illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures employed by copyright owners to guard access to their works, and expanding the measures considered as technological protection procedures which may not be circumvented. These laws are similar to US laws, yet not identical.

 

The Act also introduced private copying exceptions, which reflect proposals from Attorney General, Philip Ruddock. This allows people to record radio transmissions or television broadcasts to watch or listen to, with family or friends, at a later date. Furthermore, one may make copies of CD’s onto personal computers or portable music players.

 

Some countries in Europe, and Canada have a fee or license requirement to compensate copyright owners for the creation of private copies. This is not the same under the new Australian laws; however, one may not reproduce works for family and friends. Obviously, this could create some complexity as margins are narrowly defined and loop-holes may be easily formed.

 

Furthermore, the Act also introduced a copyright exception permitting parody and satire, and an exception to tolerate particular non-commercial use by public sector institutions including universities, schools, and art galleries.

 

Has community lost its unity?

 

It has been suggested by some religious theorists the notion of the ‘global community’ or ‘village’ is deeply rooted in the Catholic idealism of ‘the great human family’. The term ‘global village’, coined by Marshall McLuhan in the 60’s, became rhetoric in a period when westernisation was viewed as the solution to underdevelopment, and although masked behind the term ‘global’, it is still evident that the global community is based on a euro-American model. Peter Drucker states that “the educated person of the future will have to expect to live in a globalized world, which will be a westernized world”, which advocates notions of free speech, justice, democracy, commercialism and capitalist living. These ideals are not necessarily representative of the traditional cultures within many developing nations.

 

Some sociologists and digital communication theorists, such as Armand Mattelart, suggest that there has been a loss of tradition and close stable communities, as society has become concerned with never-ceasing progress and is thus exclusively future oriented. This has heavy implications for those left behind in the technological race, whose lack of access excludes them from progress by preventing entry into global connectivity networks.

 

At this point, one might consider the true and literal nature of a supposed ‘global community’. The Internet has undoubtedly contributed to increased connectivity around the world. However, the Internet by no means creates an all-encompassing global community, largely due to the lack of access and equal representation for the majority of the world’s population. According to World Internet Stats, as of 31 March 2008 only 21.1 per cent of the world’s population used the Internet. Furthermore, possession of equipment and Internet access is not the only reason for divides within the supposed ‘global community’, but also the efficiency, quality and speed of the equipment. Consequently, the notion of a ‘global community’ with ‘instant connectivity’, in actuality, is very elitist, restricted to a small portion of the global population.

 

Second life, same world

 

According to Julian Thomas “new communication technologies provide comparatively decentralised and open environments that appear to promote rights to freedom of expression, information, and communication” (Thomas, 59). This is a relatively sound argument, as the Internet is often employed as a forum for democracy and individual self-expression, while also facilitating convenient communication and the dissemination of information on a global scale. The Internet is organised by its users as they create their own content with minimal regulation, and interact with users from around the world in socially formed, democratic worldwide communities. People who interact with this technology can form digital identities that are removed yet intricately entwined with their sense of real-world identity.

 

This is particularly evident through programs such as Facebook, MySpace, chatrooms and Secondlife. Through networking sites and chatrooms, users can construct a digital personality, which may or may not directly represent their real-world personality. This may be perceived in many ways, such as a form of deception or as a harmless manifestation of the imagination. In many cases, users can form digital social relationships and the real-world personalities will never come into contact. In other cases, digital personalities have been used to exploit other users, particularly in cases of paedophilia and extortion.

 

Secondlife allows users to create their own avatar, often personalised to suit their imagined perception of themselves. Secondlife allows members to buy body-parts and accessories with Linden dollars. This personalisation of an avatar, not only comes at a monetary cost, but also involves physical, psychological and emotional investment. Suggesting these online personalities exist independent of real-world personalities would simply lack insight into the extent of social application involved in these processes. Secondlife encountered some moral and legal difficulties, as some members engaged in digital sex with child-like avatars, or sold digital representations of real-world intellectual property (ie. a Louis Vuitton handbag). The latter resulted in a real-world lawsuit on the grounds of breach of copyright.

 

Furthermore a female avatar was raped in Secondlife, and the woman tried to claim compensation for emotional damage in the real world. Empirical evidence suggests that the digital world is not so far removed from the real-world, particularly given the digital world involves replications of real-world activities and products. To further illustrate this point, the ABC Island in Secondlife was destroyed by a ‘digital bomb’ in 2007, as reported by ABC News Online, which was considered by some as an act of terrorism. In this case, digital actions had material messages. People spend real time in front of their computers, they spend real money, which can create a sense of protection and possessiveness over their avatar or ‘property’, and they engage with real people’s digital identities from around the world. Therefore, many digital actions have real-life consequences.

 

Reference:

• Thomas, Julian. “Liberal machines.” D. Meredyth and J. Minson eds. Citizenship & cultural policy. London: Sage, 2001. 154-166.

 

Visual expression; Blogging without boundaries

Regardless of how large one’s vocabulary may be, our expression will always be restricted within communication abilities and subsequent boundaries. I have always been quite comfortable expressing myself through the written word, however, even I can understand how easily the message can be lost in the channel between authors and their readers.

One of the many beauties of the blog is its capacity to harbour a range of verbal, written and visual expressions to best suit the author’s message. For instance, this week in class we are learning to upload video’s onto our blog. This opens the gateway to yet another form of expression, whereby the author may be expressing a point of view about an issue that may require a relevant video footage, or the author may speak directly to his/her listeners as a ‘post’.

Video, as a form of expression, comprises different elements to the written blog. The reader/listener has the opportunity to access a range of different types of communication, not possible from the limited expression of writing. If a blog is an online journal, then it makes sense to open the field for freedom of expression, including the conveyance of influential interpretation elements such as body language, tone of voice and various other visual or listening associated connections to the author.

I watched a blogumentary about a woman in Germany, and although her English was limited, her love for the study of blogs was clear through her smiles, tone and intimacy with this medium. She was also able to show her tattoos and discuss the prejudice she faces as a young woman from a conservative society in relation to her body art. I remember this clip vividly, her tone of voice, her facial expressions, her tattoos and her hand gestures; this is just one example of the power of the video blog.

www.opinion@factualinformation.com

Last week i was thinking about how wonderful it was that i could post an essay on the internet and for all intensive purposes i was ‘publishing’ a piece of my work. This essay i had written could be viewed by hundreds or millions of people around the world who could comment and criticise and all the things that come with being an author of a published work. The use of the internet seems to highten communication between users while lowering the barriers that distinguish between fact and fiction. Does the set-up and use of the Internet lack attention to educational value?

Sites including Wikipediea hold little credibility as an academic resource- if any. Perhaps this is primarily because anyone can post anything claiming it as fact or knowledge, and in some cases it may be days or weeks until blatently inaccurate information is taken off the site. A friend of mine conducted a test, whereby he posted a random theory of the ‘creation of light’ without any educational merit behind his presentation of supposedly ‘factual’ information. It was two weeks before his theory was removed from the site. I just hope that some young student didn’t receive a fail for the use of inaccurate information found on the internet.

Similarly, Danah Boyd, Internet Community Studies guru, recently posted ‘observations’ of internet activity in her blog. Given that she is a renowned internet analyst, her post was taken as factual or formal research, rather than opinionated observations. She copped a massive backlash of repercussions including calls for confirmation of details, interviews, Boyd said that BBC even “covered it as a formal report”.

These cases emphasise the care one must take when using the Internet as an academic resource, or for any form of knowledge base. The Internet serves as a good medium for studies into social groups, communities, cultural differences etc. However, these areas of study are primarily based on theory. Therefore, when searching for hard facts, even an accredited site can be flimsy in content. The internet already serves many puposes, and has the potential to serve many more. However, in a forum of free speach we cannot always depend on that speech (or written word) being factually accurate. Like all great tools, the internet should be used with care. Perhaps as a reflective source of information that is not the sole contributor for building a personal knowledge base.

Bad English, bad grammar, bad manners…

I am a firm believer in the power of clear communication. I have seen it land jobs, repair relationships, teach others and sway large audiences. Many of us have heard the phrase that knowledge is power, and without going into an extensive exploration of postmodernism and the allusive concept of knowledge, i feel that knowledge of the English language can lead to higher levels of respect and appreciation. 

On 7 September 2007, The Age published an article by David Campbell titled; Bad English, bad grammar, bad manners. Given my love for the intricacies of the English language, this article immediately caught my attention. This article is primarily written about the spelling and grammatical errors of British university students. Perhaps one of the more interesting points in the article is the finger pointing to modern technology as a catalyst for the demise of correct English usage.

The article suggests that with the use of instant messaging services, networking sites, blogs and the idea of instant ’self-publishing’ has created a loss of respect and understanding for appropriate English spelling and grammar. In a high speed environment, it seems as if high speed responses are more important than accuracy, and consequently users are becoming lazy, careless and inconsiderate.

Although this topic deserves much more exploration, i just want to put it out there… Is language evolving with the Internet or deteriorating? Should language be as adaptable as the environment in which it exists? Is it still important to abide by traditional language rules of accurate spelling and grammar? Finally, does bad English really result in bad manners?

If you love something, you have to set it free…

As previously mentioned, blogs are a difficult concept to define. Many people have struggled to find an all-encompassing definition by which all blogging ’styles’ and purposes may be categorised. Perhaps the concept of the blog may be similar to that of love; whereby its meaning is different to each individual.

Blogs today are different to how they were during their initial emergence, and surely they will continue to evolve in the future. This is largely due to the changes that occur as more people start blogging and networks increase in size reaching wider and more diverse audiences around the world.

In my previous classes, we were taught that a blog should contain certain characteristics. For example they should contain links, videos, and images (though i do understand that we were learning to take advantage of the Internet as a multi-narrative medium), and that they should consist of short entries and various other criteria. However, i wonder, if blogs are so difficult to define, largely because they can harbour a sometimes intense and multifaceted reader-author relationship, why should any rules apply that are not for the sake of protecting the rights of an individual?

Meanwhile, we are watching films about how freedom of speech and the media acting as the forth estate have revolutionised political and legal systems throughout history. Such movement is worthy of admiriation, and often considered necessary for democratic societies. Blogging easily facilitates such activity. On the other hand, in the blogging realm there are exceptional examples of courageous people who are willing to share their lives with the world, an exposure many people fear.

Perhaps the ‘romance’ of the blog should not be thwarted by expectations or categorisations in an attempt to capture a restrictive definition. The blog is malleable, it bends and changes form with the people who create and serve its purpose.

Digital Technologies

 

Digital communication has paved the way for the progress of a vast range of cultural media and varying, more expansive social groups. The development and use of digital technologies has sparked global discussions and debate about the effects of a free-flowing information highway upon social organisation and communication. Both broadcast and digital media have played their part in the organisation and interaction of social groups, although through different channels and methods of engagement. Radio, television and the Internet have all been problematic in the sense of establishing fair and enforceable governance, which is a continuing topic of critical analysis.

 

Various forms of social media are disseminated via Internet. Video streaming, music sharing, news articles, networking sites, academic publications, pod-casts and business promotions all thrive in this digital environment. However, media is dependent upon both social/political/scientific contribution and social interest, which is perfectly suited to the Internet as a mechanism for the distribution of information. Given the nature of the Internet, that is one of connectivity and dissemination, messages are transferred from real world communities to digital communities, which exist in a more expansive global environment. However, such ease of expansive distribution of information causes problems associated with the ability to freely upload information, regardless of its accuracy or validity.

 

Manuel Castells describes Internet publics as ‘producer/users’ and ‘consumer/users’ (Castells, 36). The first refers to those who constructive engage in the digital world whereby their constructivism feeds directly back into the system, and is culturally driven. The latter, refers to those whom consume the Internet as recipients but do not actively engage in the development of the system. Even though Castells differentiates between ‘producer/users’ and ‘consumer/users’, it is also notable that those that do not directly interact and progress the development of the Internet, do have an effect on the evolution of the Internet and its uses. The Internet affects social change according to the way members of society actively engage in and use the technology, and through the ease of expressing and disseminating subjective information.

 

Changing technologies, changing legislation

With the emergence of the electronic age, governments must adapt to suit the changing needs of the Australian population. With the development of national and global media, laws including defamation and censorship come under scrutiny. While it is fair to suggest that each state requires a representative body to regulate specific state needs, issues involving the majority of the Australian population should be confronted by the Federal government or by collaboration between state governments to create uniform legislation.

For example, if an article is published and distributed on a national scale, the author may have previously breached defamation laws in some of the eight jurisdictions, yet complied with these laws in the other jurisdictions. This creates complications as all authors of nationally published material must have vast knowledge of the different laws existing in the different jurisdictions. Furthermore, one could apply to have the case heard in the jurisdiction that would best suit their complaint.

However, it may not necessarily be ideal to relinquish certain powers to the Commonwealth government alone. Such authorizations may result in an abuse of power or outcomes that are not indicative of the preferences of the majority of Australians. Therefore, perhaps in some cases, state governments should work collaboratively to create uniform legislation that is in the best interest of the state and the nation.