After attending a college where it was standard practice for professors to move beyond sharing their political opinions to punishing students who disagreed, I am admittedly oversensitive to this issue. But the readings we did a while back, on teaching kids how to use digital media to express their political opinions, and even some of the readings on media literacy, made me a little wary. There is a balance we need to strike between empowering kids to understand media messages and voice their own opinions, and convincing kids to believe the same things we do.
It can be tricky. On some level, teaching media literacy is in itself a subversive action. We’re teaching kids to think critically about information provided by the government, the media, corporations: sources that plenty of their parents trust without question. Learning to ask those questions is a vital skill, and one that kids are not likely to pick up on their own. Even so, it’s not without controversy. There are plenty of adults who would prefer that children believe what they’re told. There is, after all, a great deal of money at stake.
So it’s important, I think, to make certain that we teach kids how to make these evaluations and judgments on their own, without asserting that our own views on the subject are right. Rheingold’s goal seems like a good one: “What if teachers could help students discover what they really care about, then show them how to use digital media to learn more and to persuade others?” Helping kids refine and articulate their views, and teaching them how to share those views in interesting, attention-getting ways – that’s all well and good. This stuff, though, concerns me more:
Finally, American youth are particularly susceptible to being influenced by corporate-funded mass culture, which is aimed directly at them even though it reaches a global audience. For that very reason, they have special leverage over media corporations, especially if they act cooperatively. It is not an exaggeration to say that youth civic engagement in the United States could benefit democracy around the world if youth-led associations challenged mass culture.
I agree, right? But this is a political opinion. Where do we draw the line between teaching media literacy skills and performing our own indoctrination? Is it really the place of schools or teachers to encourage kids to “challenge” mass culture, above and beyond just analyzing it? I don’t know. It seems like a difficult line to walk, anyway.
On the other side: for my annotated bibliography, I looked at copyright issues and youth, and while researching that topic, I ended up looking through a bunch of pro-corporate propaganda aimed at kids. The good news is, a lot of schools are teaching kids about copyright law in a responsible way: they're giving kids information about how they can and can't use other people's intellectual property, with plenty of emphasis placed on the fair use doctrine and on finding Creative Commons-licensed or public domain materials.
The bad news - there is always bad news - is that plenty of schools aren't. The MPAA and the RIAA, among other corporate interest groups, have created lesson plans that boil down to, “If you didn’t pay for it, you stole it.” That’s obviously not true. These lessons ignore the intricacies and vagaries of copyright law in the real world. Rather than introduce a complicated subject, like fair use, these interest groups ignore it entirely, even though it has a huge impact on the way we think about and interact with copyrighted materials.
Worryingly, plenty of schools are using these lesson plans. California now requires most schools to teach kids about copyright law. (Whether or not this is more worthwhile than teaching them, say, math or English or music theory is up for debate.) Teachers, most of whom are pressed for time as it is, sometimes see these professionally produced, thorough lesson plans as an easy option. And so corporate interests continue to insinuate their way into our schools. And of course, the reason I find this so upsetting is that I do not think that the political positions of some corporate entity have any place in the classroom, where they are presented by teachers and other adults in positions of authority, and are less likely to be questioned by the young people who hear them.
So while teaching kids the realities of copyright law – how it impacts them, what exceptions they may be able to take advantage of, how to find materials that are freely available – is absolutely important, we have to be careful. Advocating for a change in copyright law, reasonable as it may be, probably isn’t something we should be doing in the classroom. (On our own time, or as an institution…that’s a different story. Advocating for copyright law reform seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for libraries and librarians to do.)
Anyway. Teaching media literacy skills can be a really empowering thing. Teaching kids about the ways copyright law can work for them, or the ways they can work around it, is also good. We just have to make sure that kids are empowered to take their media literacy toolbox and go out in the world to figure things out for themselves.
Showing posts with label big corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big corporations. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Some Scattered Thoughts on Copyright and Privacy
Copyight & Choking Creativity
Lessig’s TED presentation on copyright law certainly resonated with me, and left me with much to think about. While I very much respect where he is coming from, I have several concerns about his proposed solutions.
Corporations not Creators Own Copyrights
First, he argues that artists and creators should allow more freely available content into the marketplace. This makes sense, and I agree that this is necessary for movement toward his vision of a “legal” read-write society. What I question, however, is whether in today’s economy artists and creators are really in control of their work. Often artists sign away their rights (or at least some of their rights) to corporations –agencies, publishers, record labels, etc. While they may still gain profit from their work and have some limited control over how the work is used, it is the corporation that must give permission and make the content freely available. It is the corporation that will sue if copyright infringement occurs, and it is the corporation that has a vested interest in making sure the content is not freely available.
Copyright is Confusing
Lessig alludes to Creative Commons in his presentation, though he doesn’t go into a discussion of it. I strongly support the ideals of Creative Commons. However, I don’t see it as a feasible solution that will end “Copyright abolitionism” that is so rampant among youth (and many others), simply for the fact that it is too confusing. If you are remixing 10 movie clips with a song plus multiple photographs, and perhaps look at 100s of objects to decide which is best for your creation, think how time consuming and limiting it is to try to figure out the allowances and restrictions that are on each individual item. Even with Creative Commons labeling, it can be extremely difficult to discern how and when the item can be used, who to ask for permission, etc. I just don’t see young people taking the time to investigate this for each item.
I agree with Lessig that in this “Age of Prohibitions” youth will continue to be driven (or choose to) live life “against the law” simply because it is too hard and limiting to follow the law, and because the risk of prosecution is relatively low. The lessons of a previous age of Prohibition (remember speakeasys?) showed that in the end it was necessary to reconsider the law because it was impossible to prosecute everyone who has breaking the law, and only the gangsters and bootleggers were profiting. I wonder if digital copyright law might not be a similar case.
Does Participating in Society Today Mean Forgoing Privacy?
I’ve been thinking lately about the ways in which privacy is defined and does or doesn’t exist in today’s society. I have recently received a spate of privacy policy statements in the mail from various credit cards, banks, and businesses that I use the services of. In order to participate with nearly any business or web site, or to have a presence in the online world, etc., etc. we must sign away certain rights to our personal information. Many of us do this without thinking—often feeling that we don’t have a choice. And in many ways, I don’t think we do. How can one really avoid putting their information into the public sphere without becoming a recluse?
Even if you were able to somehow avoid working with any business or organization that had access to personal information, you would still be confronted with the massive amounts of public surveillance that goes on worldwide. I can’t remember ever signing or seeing a privacy policy about how an ATM or convenience store or city street camera can use my image. While generally these images are only released upon a crime being committed, how are images being stored, by who, and for how long? Is there any law saying that the owner of that surveillance tape could not use it to make a profit? If a celebrity sits down in a restaurant with someone who is not their spouse, could that restaurant sell the tape to a gossip outlet like TMZ?
I realize I am stretching things a bit here, but it is an interesting question. How much of our right to privacy do we give up just by leaving our house, whether virtually or physically? How much right to privacy should we expect to have in the public sphere? And will the legacy of our culture in the distant future be the massive amounts of surveillance images that we are leaving behind?
Also wanted to share this link to an intriguing map about surveillance from http://www.privacyinternational.org/. I was going to post a copy of the picture here, but decided in the light of copyright discussions this week, I would just link to it.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
On a life spent illegally downloading music
I remember the first time I used Napster. I was in ninth grade, spending the night at my friend Lindsey's house. "Listen to this," she said. She had downloaded a dozen or so songs by a band I'd never heard of, called Dashboard Confessional. (I thought the singer was a woman.) My family, devoted Macintosh users all, didn't have access to Napster (much less a CD burner or a sufficiently fast internet connection, even in the dialup days) - Lindsey's new toy was a revelation. We spent the entire night downloading music, one song at a time. By the next morning, we had downloaded four songs. Awesome.
By the time I got to college, things were in even better shape for the young and broke. My college unwittingly played host to "the network" - thousands and thousands of movies, games, television episodes, and songs shared among every student on campus. Some particularly industrious hosts held close to a terabyte of stuff all by themselves. Others prided themselves on having new TV episodes up and available within hours of their airing. Nobody had cable or Netflix, and only a handful of us patronized the super-cool record store downtown.
So I'm one of those people - a child of the digital generation who downloads music illegally without a second thought. Kind of. Like a lot of people my age - mid-twenties-ish - I still spend plenty of money on my music consumption. The difference is that I spend most of it on concerts and T-shirts. I still buy music. I paid $5 for that Radiohead album a couple of years ago, because that's how much a Radiohead album that isn't Kid A is worth to me. Last week I downloaded James Mercer's side project, but I'll probably pay money for it when it comes out in March.
"But those aren’t baby bands who had to do it themselves from the start. Newer acts may well be cottage industries — in wired cottages — for life." (NYT)
Sure, when I see a good local band at a bar or club, I buy their CD - but that doesn't happen too often. For one thing, I am not hip enough to go out three times a week. For another, most local bands are pretty terrible. Most of the music I listen to I heard on TV or the radio - same as ever. The difference is that if I hear a song I like - on a TV show, on the radio, whatever - I go online and download it for free. But what's changed, really? As a kid, I taped songs off of the radio all the time. The difference is that now, there is way more out there to download, right? Thanks to the internet, every whosit with a guitar has a chance at fame! If anyone ever hears it. I totally thought that the whole MySpace music thing was going to change the world, but it hasn't. The tastemakers are the same people, but now they're in worse financial shape than ever, so they're promoting even fewer artists.
So, unless you're really good at marketing yourself - or unless your label (if you have one!) thinks you're The Next Big Thing - you're basically screwed. Sure, you can buy my friend's band's CD on iTunes, but does anyone? (I did, Noah!) Sure, Radiohead's stunt worked, but that's because they're Radiohead. And I notice, with the kids I work with, that everything they listen to is manufactured. The younger kids and the 'tween set listen to Disney popsters and Taylor Swift, the teens are into whatever rap guy is big at the moment. There's way too much garbage out there for us to become our own tastemakers. And so the world is basically unchanged. There was no MySpace revolution. The pool of what we actually listen to has only gotten smaller. Other than the occasional tidbit on NPR or tiny college radio stations, when is the last time you heard independent music on the radio?
"But the flip side of disintermediation — not having to rely on any middleman for approval or distribution — is a near-infinite slush pile. All the filtering that used to take place out of earshot, in A&R and club bookers’ offices, can be bypassed." (NYT)
ON THE OTHER HAND! There are artists that succeed - that have gotten their "break" on YouTube or MySpace. Not many of them, but it does happen. I do know a handful of teens - again, not many, but a few - who are into making mash-ups, filming their own music videos for their favorite songs and putting them on YouTube, and tweeting to (with?) their favorite artists. None of this could have happened before the internet. The music industry has changed, but it's not the artist who suddenly has power. It's the consumer. Much like we see in television - with fan movements bringing back cancelled shows (Chuck, Jericho), fanfiction writers re-writing plot points for their fellow fans, and consumers making choices about how they want to watch their favorite shows (TiVo, Hulu, BitTorrent) - listeners are now better equipped than ever to listen to music the way they want to. Pay for it, steal it, interact with it. For the first time, we can dig through that slush pile ourselves if we want to. There are countless websites that can direct you to the good stuff, most of them run by random people out in the world - not the record execs. Not Simon Cowell.
It's not a revolution. Our music tastes, as a culture, haven't suddenly diversified. Most of us still listen to whatever the record companies put on the table. But we don't have to. And that's pretty cool.
P.S. PBS: It's Sarah McLachlan. With an H.
Interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jan/08/long-tail-myth-download
On another, TOTALLY NSFW note, this blog.
If you didn't get enough inane and/or deeply offensive rap lyrics from that PBS site, I recommend you check this out. Commentary ranges from seriously hilarious to roughly as offensive as the lyrics, but whatever. Also, does anyone else look back fondly on the days when "Drake" was Jimmy Brooks on Degrassi? And can we just take a minute to note how totally not gangster Degrassi is?
By the time I got to college, things were in even better shape for the young and broke. My college unwittingly played host to "the network" - thousands and thousands of movies, games, television episodes, and songs shared among every student on campus. Some particularly industrious hosts held close to a terabyte of stuff all by themselves. Others prided themselves on having new TV episodes up and available within hours of their airing. Nobody had cable or Netflix, and only a handful of us patronized the super-cool record store downtown.
So I'm one of those people - a child of the digital generation who downloads music illegally without a second thought. Kind of. Like a lot of people my age - mid-twenties-ish - I still spend plenty of money on my music consumption. The difference is that I spend most of it on concerts and T-shirts. I still buy music. I paid $5 for that Radiohead album a couple of years ago, because that's how much a Radiohead album that isn't Kid A is worth to me. Last week I downloaded James Mercer's side project, but I'll probably pay money for it when it comes out in March.
"But those aren’t baby bands who had to do it themselves from the start. Newer acts may well be cottage industries — in wired cottages — for life." (NYT)
Sure, when I see a good local band at a bar or club, I buy their CD - but that doesn't happen too often. For one thing, I am not hip enough to go out three times a week. For another, most local bands are pretty terrible. Most of the music I listen to I heard on TV or the radio - same as ever. The difference is that if I hear a song I like - on a TV show, on the radio, whatever - I go online and download it for free. But what's changed, really? As a kid, I taped songs off of the radio all the time. The difference is that now, there is way more out there to download, right? Thanks to the internet, every whosit with a guitar has a chance at fame! If anyone ever hears it. I totally thought that the whole MySpace music thing was going to change the world, but it hasn't. The tastemakers are the same people, but now they're in worse financial shape than ever, so they're promoting even fewer artists.
So, unless you're really good at marketing yourself - or unless your label (if you have one!) thinks you're The Next Big Thing - you're basically screwed. Sure, you can buy my friend's band's CD on iTunes, but does anyone? (I did, Noah!) Sure, Radiohead's stunt worked, but that's because they're Radiohead. And I notice, with the kids I work with, that everything they listen to is manufactured. The younger kids and the 'tween set listen to Disney popsters and Taylor Swift, the teens are into whatever rap guy is big at the moment. There's way too much garbage out there for us to become our own tastemakers. And so the world is basically unchanged. There was no MySpace revolution. The pool of what we actually listen to has only gotten smaller. Other than the occasional tidbit on NPR or tiny college radio stations, when is the last time you heard independent music on the radio?
"But the flip side of disintermediation — not having to rely on any middleman for approval or distribution — is a near-infinite slush pile. All the filtering that used to take place out of earshot, in A&R and club bookers’ offices, can be bypassed." (NYT)
ON THE OTHER HAND! There are artists that succeed - that have gotten their "break" on YouTube or MySpace. Not many of them, but it does happen. I do know a handful of teens - again, not many, but a few - who are into making mash-ups, filming their own music videos for their favorite songs and putting them on YouTube, and tweeting to (with?) their favorite artists. None of this could have happened before the internet. The music industry has changed, but it's not the artist who suddenly has power. It's the consumer. Much like we see in television - with fan movements bringing back cancelled shows (Chuck, Jericho), fanfiction writers re-writing plot points for their fellow fans, and consumers making choices about how they want to watch their favorite shows (TiVo, Hulu, BitTorrent) - listeners are now better equipped than ever to listen to music the way they want to. Pay for it, steal it, interact with it. For the first time, we can dig through that slush pile ourselves if we want to. There are countless websites that can direct you to the good stuff, most of them run by random people out in the world - not the record execs. Not Simon Cowell.
It's not a revolution. Our music tastes, as a culture, haven't suddenly diversified. Most of us still listen to whatever the record companies put on the table. But we don't have to. And that's pretty cool.
P.S. PBS: It's Sarah McLachlan. With an H.
Interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jan/08/long-tail-myth-download
On another, TOTALLY NSFW note, this blog.
If you didn't get enough inane and/or deeply offensive rap lyrics from that PBS site, I recommend you check this out. Commentary ranges from seriously hilarious to roughly as offensive as the lyrics, but whatever. Also, does anyone else look back fondly on the days when "Drake" was Jimmy Brooks on Degrassi? And can we just take a minute to note how totally not gangster Degrassi is?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Same Old Same Old? or A Whole New World?
While listening to Radio Disney this weekend, I was struck by how little things had changed since I was a tween and young teen, lo these many years ago. “I will love only you forever and ever.” “Love me for who I really am.” “I can’t live without your love.” “I’m really special inside where no-one can see.” “I’m for real, and I hate phonies” “You done me wrong.” “Baby, it feels so right when I’m with you.” And so it goes. Idealism, extreme emotions, high drama, focus on the self, and a deep desire to both fit in and be unique fill the songs that fill Radio Disney. These are the same themes that have been the hallmark of teen music for decades.
In addition to the music, much of the programming and promotion on Radio Disney had a very familiar feel to it. There were interviews with stars, contests—“Be the third caller and you could win…”—request lines, relentlessly upbeat disc jockeys, and young people on the phone trying very hard to sound very cool. Although I was trying to call the radio station from a Princess phone and today’s teens are calling from cell phones, the desire to be on the radio has not changed. Although my personal heartthrobs were Mark Lindsey and David Cassidy (much though I cringe to admit it) rather than the Jonas Brothers, the passionate adoration and desire to know every single possible detail about that person’s likes and dislikes are not very different today than they were when I was young.
And yet, some things are very different than they were. I used to have to listen to a song over and over and over again to try and figure out what the lyrics were. There were endless debates: did he say “Rolled up like a deuce” or “Rolled up like a douche”? (How sophisticated we thought we were to be able to say that work without giggling…) Nowadays, the lyrics are there for you with a click if you want them. I’m not entirely sure why that seems important to me, but it does. I’d welcome others’ thoughts on whether this instant availability of the lyrics matters.
When a radio station had a limited broadcast range it could only reach the people within its area of service. There was at least the possibility that popular songs or singers could vary from region to region. The capacity of Radio Disney to reach the whole nation instantly probably increases the homogeneity of popular music. The same songs and stars will be hits in New York, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles all at the same time.
Although there was some crossover between TV and music stars, i.e., David Cassidy, for the most part, music, movie and TV stars were different people. A musician followed one route to success and needed one particular set of people to back him or her, while a TV actor followed another route and needed a different set of people. The people who owned radio stations and music labels were not the same people who owned TV stations. But now, Miley Cyrus is a music/movie/TV juggernaut. Her TV show feeds demand for her music and her music and TV show promote her movies. Several of the songs I listened to this weekend were from the soundtrack of a soon to be released movie. There isn’t as much separation between entertainment venues as I remember.
I have heard it argued that the Internet would have a democratizing influence on music; anyone could get their music out there and find a following. Radio Disney seems to be an example of the opposite effect. By playing to young people’s desire to be on top of whatever is cool at the moment and being able to blitz the whole country with the few songs and singers that its owners deem to be marketable, Radio Disney has an enormously powerful effect on what tweens and teens listen to.
The idea of big corporations dictating what kind of music is available was also brought forth in the “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes” and “The Way the Music Died” websites. This possibility bothers me a little less in those cases though, because they deal with music aimed more at adults. The argument that recording companies won’t buy hip-hop music with honorable or inspirational lyrics, that hip-hop musicians perform violent or homophobic songs because that is what sells has, in my opinion, some validity to it. If hundreds of thousands of people pay good money to buy songs with lyrics that I happen to think are hateful, it seems a little pointless to wring my hands and complain about the record companies or recording artists. As a society, we get the music we pay for, and if don’t like what is being paid for, we should probably think about why our culture values such songs.
Marketing to children though, may be a little different, simply because kids are developmentally more inclined to follow the herd. The need to fit in is so great at this age that it makes me a little uncomfortable to think of such a small group of people whose only motive is profit having such great influence. Having said that, though, I wonder what the solution would be. I would be very interested in knowing what others think about kids and music and marketing. Is anyone else troubled? Or am I over-reacting? Perhaps just another older person worrying needlessly about “young people these days?” In any event, spending time with Radio Disney was a very interesting and thought provoking experience.
In addition to the music, much of the programming and promotion on Radio Disney had a very familiar feel to it. There were interviews with stars, contests—“Be the third caller and you could win…”—request lines, relentlessly upbeat disc jockeys, and young people on the phone trying very hard to sound very cool. Although I was trying to call the radio station from a Princess phone and today’s teens are calling from cell phones, the desire to be on the radio has not changed. Although my personal heartthrobs were Mark Lindsey and David Cassidy (much though I cringe to admit it) rather than the Jonas Brothers, the passionate adoration and desire to know every single possible detail about that person’s likes and dislikes are not very different today than they were when I was young.
And yet, some things are very different than they were. I used to have to listen to a song over and over and over again to try and figure out what the lyrics were. There were endless debates: did he say “Rolled up like a deuce” or “Rolled up like a douche”? (How sophisticated we thought we were to be able to say that work without giggling…) Nowadays, the lyrics are there for you with a click if you want them. I’m not entirely sure why that seems important to me, but it does. I’d welcome others’ thoughts on whether this instant availability of the lyrics matters.
When a radio station had a limited broadcast range it could only reach the people within its area of service. There was at least the possibility that popular songs or singers could vary from region to region. The capacity of Radio Disney to reach the whole nation instantly probably increases the homogeneity of popular music. The same songs and stars will be hits in New York, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles all at the same time.
Although there was some crossover between TV and music stars, i.e., David Cassidy, for the most part, music, movie and TV stars were different people. A musician followed one route to success and needed one particular set of people to back him or her, while a TV actor followed another route and needed a different set of people. The people who owned radio stations and music labels were not the same people who owned TV stations. But now, Miley Cyrus is a music/movie/TV juggernaut. Her TV show feeds demand for her music and her music and TV show promote her movies. Several of the songs I listened to this weekend were from the soundtrack of a soon to be released movie. There isn’t as much separation between entertainment venues as I remember.
I have heard it argued that the Internet would have a democratizing influence on music; anyone could get their music out there and find a following. Radio Disney seems to be an example of the opposite effect. By playing to young people’s desire to be on top of whatever is cool at the moment and being able to blitz the whole country with the few songs and singers that its owners deem to be marketable, Radio Disney has an enormously powerful effect on what tweens and teens listen to.
The idea of big corporations dictating what kind of music is available was also brought forth in the “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes” and “The Way the Music Died” websites. This possibility bothers me a little less in those cases though, because they deal with music aimed more at adults. The argument that recording companies won’t buy hip-hop music with honorable or inspirational lyrics, that hip-hop musicians perform violent or homophobic songs because that is what sells has, in my opinion, some validity to it. If hundreds of thousands of people pay good money to buy songs with lyrics that I happen to think are hateful, it seems a little pointless to wring my hands and complain about the record companies or recording artists. As a society, we get the music we pay for, and if don’t like what is being paid for, we should probably think about why our culture values such songs.
Marketing to children though, may be a little different, simply because kids are developmentally more inclined to follow the herd. The need to fit in is so great at this age that it makes me a little uncomfortable to think of such a small group of people whose only motive is profit having such great influence. Having said that, though, I wonder what the solution would be. I would be very interested in knowing what others think about kids and music and marketing. Is anyone else troubled? Or am I over-reacting? Perhaps just another older person worrying needlessly about “young people these days?” In any event, spending time with Radio Disney was a very interesting and thought provoking experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
