Main Blog Post: Sustainable Cultural Production
Posted: June 2, 2011 Filed under: Main Blog Posts | Tags: cc, creative commons, netcom2011, wikipedia, youtube 2 CommentsMedosch argues that: “CC does not pay any attention at all to the issue of an economic model for supporting cultural production” (Reader, page 315).
Discuss while giving an example online.
The main idea behind the vision and mission of Creative Commons (CC) are about participatory culture, free culture, maximizing creativity, sharing and innovation. Unlike other capital driven user generated content sites like YouTube and Flickr, CC is still a not-for-profit social movement aimed at sharing contents in the World Wide Web for free (Medosch 2008). Foong (2010) writes CC is a tool for people who do not sell their creation to make a living. Indeed, there is a lack of attention to the issue of an economic model for supporting cultural production on CC.
Screenshot of Wikipedia Homepage
Using Wikipedia as an example, it is the most popular site that uses a CC license for its content (it is ranked 7th on Alexa). The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia. As an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia rely on volunteers to write and edit articles. Similar to CC, Wikipedia is a user generated content site but not capital driven. There is no economic model such as advertising space on the website, supporting the production of encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. It solely relies on public funding through donations and fund raising drive on the web. Wikipedia uses the Creative Commons Attribution – ShareALike License, which means that the organisation still hold some rights to the content.
Medosch (2008) writes CC co-inventor Lessig is assuming that the economic model (or lack of) for cultural production will be resolved automatically in the future. However, Lessig’s assumption may not be overly optimistic.
Although CC does not pay any attention to the issue of an economic model for supporting cultural production, there are instances where a business model has been derived from using CC licenses. An example would be American rock band, Nine Inch Nails. The band released two albums under the CC (Attribution Non-Commercial ShareALike) license and made the first nine tracks of the album free for sampling. In doing so, the band sold digital copies for the rest of their music tracks and earned $1.6 million in one week. The success of their sales is long term despite facing threats from peer-to-peer file sharing sites (Foong 2010). Hence, Techdirt came up with this business model for the success of Nine Inch Nails:
Connect with Fans (CwF) + give them a Reason to Buy (RtB) = $$$.
This is an interesting and practical formula to explore, which can be extended not only to music artists but also to CC users. In order for CC to thrive, it should take the leap and pay attention to the issue of an economic model to support cultural production. Renowned artists and academics are put off by the idea of CC, as their hard work cannot be translated to economic incentives. The current CC concept is unfair for professionals who spend their entire life creating cultural content and expecting them to share it for free (Medosch 2008). With the formula, CC could come up with adaptations of the business model tweaked to suit the different interests of CC license users. This would be a good economic model to consider supporting cultural production. It will also encourage more professional artists to take CC more seriously and not a concept suited for amateurs seeking recognition in their cultural content.
References
Marc Garcelon, ‘An Information Commons? Creative Commons and Public Access to Cultural Creations’, New Media & Society 11.8 (2009): 1307-1326
Foong, C. (2010) ‘Sharing With Creative Commons: A Business Model for Content Creators’, PLATFORM: Journal of Media and Communication, A Creative Commons Special Edition (December): 64-93.
Main Blog Post: Creative Commons – Towards free sharing?
Posted: May 18, 2011 Filed under: Main Blog Posts | Tags: cc, ccmixter, creative commons, Flickr, netcom2011 Leave a commentExplain why you chose the Creative Commons license that you added to your blog and discuss the relevance (or not) of adding the license.
What does this logo mean? Click here to find out!
This week, we talked about Creative Commons in lecture and read the cause behind this license aiming to disseminate information freely. So, I was given the option to add a Creative Commons license and I decided to do so. There are 6 licenses to choose from and I chose the one that matches my concerns and interest.
So let me break down the logo in words for you what it means if you are too lazy to click.Here are the four keywords:
1. Creative Commons
2. Attribution
3. Non-Commercial
4. Share Alike
Why this license?
The combination (Attribution, Non-Commerical and Share Alike) addressed my concerns and suited my interests in looking for a suitable Creative Commons license. Attribution is of utmost importance because I strongly believe in crediting the work of the original author/creator. As much as I am willing to share my ideas for the greater good, I want my ideas to be attributed if other people choose to use it. The non-commercial criterion was also equally important to me because I am running an academic blog and it is strictly not for profit. I do not think it is fair for other people to use my ideas and works for commercial purposes to their benefit. Lastly, Share Alike encourages the act of sharing which I feel is the main purpose of this license and it also helps to promote and create awareness of Creative Commons. Hopefully, people will be more receptive towards it.
Photo by Tyler Stefanich - Creative Commons License
Relevance of license
Copyright or Copyleft? As this is an academic blog, I’ve chose left. Creative Commons license is relevant as it allows information to be shared freely. I can gain recognition from my work through attribution by other users and it also gives me an idea how my thoughts and ideas have improved or impacted other people.
Thomas Jefferson argues ideas should remain in public domain rather than bound by legal restrictions. He also writes Creative Commons provide alternatives oligopolistic control of distribution of creative work (Garcelon 2009). The arguments resonate with me. As much as I believe in the importance of copyright to protect one’s intellectual property, sharing of ideas should be made easier for people who wish to do so. Copyright legal implications restrict the sharing of ideas in the World Wide Web and steer humans in believing to protect their self-interests rather than moving forward together as a society. Creative Commons license is good for budding artists to gain recognition. Take for example the photo above taken by Tyler Stefanich. It was taken for a Creative Commons competition. With the CC license, the photo gained recognition and it was even used for lecture in University of Sydney.
Creative Commons branches such as CCMixter, Flickr and CCText provide platforms for budding musicians and photographers to share their creative works. In an interview with Victor Stone, Garcelon (2009) writes struggling musicians have to choose between giving their music away free for recognition or reserving their rights and no one will ever hear their musical tracks. I would choose the former option as recognition is the key to a successful music career.
Flickr Creative Commons is another platform for users to search for images not having to worry about copyright infringement. Users just need to attribute the source.
There is a lot of room for Creative Commons to grow. However, it is difficult to engage successful commercial entities to join the Creative Commons family. Look at iTunes and its success – it is a wet blanket to CCMixter because it doesn’t necessarily mean that what’s free makes it popular. Despite so, Creative Commons is still relevant to my blog as it makes it easier for people to share and obtain information.
References
Garcelon, M 2009, ‘An Information Commons? Creative Commons and Public Access to Cultural Creations’, New Media & Society, Vol.11, no. 8, pp. 1307-1326
Creative Commons 2011, Creative Commons, Massachusetts viewed 13 May 2011, <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/>
Main Blog Post: Do blogs inform us more effectively?
Posted: May 15, 2011 Filed under: Main Blog Posts | Tags: netcom2011, Straits Times 1 CommentRussell (et al.) compares elite media and institutions with bloggers and ponders the following question: “Do bloggers, with their editorial independence, collaborative structure and merit-based popularity more effectively inform the public?” (Reader, page 136). Do you agree? Use examples to illustrate your point of view.
Blogs are new sources of information that aim to inform the public effectively through its editorial independent content. In answering the question, I will be comparing the elite media and institution in Singapore – The Straits Times (ST) and The Temasek Review (TR), a socio-political blog.
ST is the most widely read broadsheet in Singapore and owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). However, the Singapore media is always labeled as state-controlled. Why is this so? SPH is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government investment company and the Chairman is coincidentally the former Deputy Prime Minister. Using the recent Singapore general election as an example, ST carried mainly pro-government articles and neutral or negative reports on the opposition parties. This triggered frustration among the younger Singaporeans setting up Facebook pages to boycott the elite local media.
Screenshot of the Facebook page to boycott ST's sister publication - The New Paper.
On the other hand, “blogs are another kind of collective intelligence in which individuals pool together their fact-finding capabilities to gather knowledge that can challenge the authority of the professional press” (Russell et. al 2008). This describes the team of bloggers behind TR, run by Singaporean bloggers from all walks of life (from students to professors). Their identity is protected due to fear of repercussions in the political climate of Singapore. Hence, the issue of bias arises as bloggers may write with a hidden political agenda.
With increasing opportunities for amateur production, people are resisting the content of mainstream news using it to offer contesting point of view and alternative practices (Russell et al 2008). This is evident, as Singaporeans seeking for an alternative point of view would read TR. Hence, I see TR as a fourth estate and unofficial watchdog of the Singapore government as it aims to provide an unbiased political coverage. With editorial independence, collaborative structure and merit-based popularity, the content of the blog is refreshing as it uses news sources such as ST to offer an alternative point of view, which ST does not do so. The content in TR offers contesting arguments and reasons towards issues. Unlike ST, it is not concerned with profits and not owned by the government. Thus, the blog entries do not have to practice self-censorship and are often straightforward, criticizing government policies openly.
In this comparison, blogs do inform the public more effectively by providing viewpoints that may disagree with the state controlled mainstream media. It is another platform where the public now can turn to for information. Among Singaporeans, 1 in 2 think that mainstream media reporting is biased towards the ruling party especially towards political issues (Chang 2011). It also doesn’t help that in the 2010 Press Freedom Index, Singapore, a democratic nation, is ranked 136th in the world (Australia is ranked 18th). This means that reporters and editors are faced with strict censorship when reporting political sensitive issues in the state owned mainstream media. Political blogs like TR fills the gaps with alternative viewpoints, thus informing the public more effectively about government policies without any restrictions and the need for self-censorship. However, blogs and elite media institutions usually offer polarizing viewpoints so readers need to be discerning and critical when they are presented with this information.
References
Press Freedom Index 2010, Reporters Without Borders For Press Freedom, Washington DC viewed 15 May 2011, <http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html>
Russell A, Ito M, Richmond T, Tuters M 2008, ‘Culture: Media Convergence and Networked Culture’, in Kazys Varnelis (ed.), Networked Publics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 43-76
R, Chang 2011, The Straits Times, Singapore viewed 24 May 2011, <http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_672048.html>
The Temasek Review 2011, The Temasek Review, Singapore viewed 15 May 2011, <http://www.temasekreview.com/about-2/>
Main Blog Post – Celebrity vs Star
Posted: May 14, 2011 Filed under: Main Blog Posts | Tags: Justin Bieber, netcom2011 1 CommentBurgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269).
In answering this question, I have chosen the option of video blogging so please take some time to take a look at it.
The video is slightly longer than the stipulated 5 minutes because I have embedded YouTube videos for discussion. Enjoy!
References
Burgess J, Green J 2009, ‘YouTube and The Mainstream Media’, in YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 15-37
‘Do Not Track’ Bill – a step forward?
Posted: May 11, 2011 Filed under: Informal Blog Posts | Tags: Digital Trends, DoNotTrackBill, Online Privacy Leave a commentDo-Not-Track Online Act 2011 allow Internet users in the United States to block companies from gathering information about online activities.
Photo by gigaom.com
Digital Trends reported that the act will also be made simple for consumers to opt out from being tracked.
Is this act a step forward to online privacy? I would argue that it certainly is.
Under this act, companies are legally obliged to adhere to consumer’s choice of privacy. This means we can finally surf in peace without being on surveillance 24/7.
But where should the line be drawn? Is this act enough to protect consumer’s online privacy?
This act is definitely not enough to protect consumer’s online privacy but it is a good initiative. I would also hope that this act will be passed in other countries outside USA.
To conclude, there should be stiff penalties against companies who flout the rules. As an online user, I like the notion of freedom while surfing the web.
Facebook – boon or bane?
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Informal Blog Posts | Tags: facebook, katespade, netcom2011, SGelections, socialmedia, tinpeiling, viral Leave a commentIn Week 5’s lecture, Marcos quoted Solove (2007),
“We’re heading toward a world where an extensive trail of information fragments about us will be forever preserved on the Internet, displayed instantly in a Google search…”
Indeed.
This was a photo posted on her personal facebook profile. But, this photo cost her votes and public discontentment during the Singapore General Election 2011.
Photo by Ms Tin Pei Ling
She is Tin Pei Ling, a 27-year-old elected Member of Parliament in Singapore. Just like any other young internet savvy Singaporean, Ms Tin posted this photo on her facebook profile to share her latest buy from Kate Spade. Upon announcement that she is standing as a Member of Parliament candidate, the dissemination of this photo went viral before she could tweak with her profile privacy settings. The photo has since been removed from her profile but it can be easily found on google. In fact, just type in her name and this photo will appear.
As much as I dislike her as a Member of Parliament (MP), I felt that this photo is taken out of context. She wouldn’t be facing so much public scrutiny if she was just an ordinary citizen. However, she should have been more discreet about her branded buy. As a politician, she should be more sensitive towards the ‘sandwiched middle class’ constantly trying to keep up with the cost of living.
This photo is going to haunt and put a dent in her political career. After the General Election on Saturday, there is a petition on Facebook to remove her from her post as a Member of Parliament.
Screenshot of a Facebook petition to remove Ms Tin as a Member of Parliament
So is Facebook a boon or bane?
It definitely has its pros and cons. My previous post mentioned Facebook is a free platform for politicians to spread their policies and even used to convince voters why they should vote for them. However, with the rise of social media, all public figures MUST take extra precautions to protect their online identity.
Social media will continue to grow with more users embracing and using it. Politicians need to know how to engage the youths with the use of social media.
To end off the post, here is a quote taken off Asian Tech Catalog from Nicole Seah, the youngest female opposition candidate:
“Let us remember that social media in itself is just a medium. So if you want to use it for the sake of using it, you wouldn’t get much result.”
In short, politicians should use social media to engage the young voters. They must also make an effort to update and read the comments posted by users. If not, it is pointless to own a facebook account just to jump on the bandwagon of using social media. However, politicians still need to treat social media just like mainstream media as quotes and photos can always be taken out of context and turn viral.
