Participatory culture and Copyright. How can they get along?

Posted on by majesticjam

It can be said without a doubt that currently the boundary between a digital media consumer and producer is gradually vanishing. Due to the development of Web 2.0 and the increasing accessibility of advanced technologies like mobile phones, digital cameras, WYSIWYG editors more and more people are leaving the position of a passive spectator and becoming digital authors.

Modern internet users, especially digital natives, do not only consume digital media content, but interact with it by commenting, sharing or even creating it themselves from scratch (“Youtubers”, Soundcloud, Instagram, etc.), thus filling the gaps that were not fulfilled by traditional digital media producers. So, now digital media users are becoming both producers and consumers, or prosumers.

Participatory culture
Participatory culture – (Barrie, 2009)

However, most of young prosumers ‘lack of information literacy skills or understanding of issues such as plagiarism and copyright'(Jones et al., 2011). Moreover, participatory culture leads to the creation of unverified and amateurish web content that competes with a copyrighted one (Kakutani, 2007). As a result, professionals who make their living from creating works need to compete with multiple prosumers who are even more trusted by millennials (Barakat, 2014).

What concerns internet news, the user generated content has a positive effect here. It allows web users see the situation from different viewing angles. By getting information both from professional journalists and pro-ams, users may develop their critical thinking and form their own opinion that much better than just absorbing the news provided by one source – mass media. In addition to this, the experts themselves may gain from this situation by using “superficial observations of the world around” (Kakutani, 2007) as an additional free source of info.

Furthermore, participatory culture with Creative Commons and Open Source licenses, has made it possible to avoid power misbalance in the media industry. According to Klein, Moss and Edwards (2015), most of the money are concentrated in the hand of labels or elite stars while novices often deal with unfair contracts. In this way, Creative Commons that stimulates sharing culture is a good way out for beginning stars.

Web 2.0 is a considerable threat to the traditional digital media industry but its influence is inevitable as it is just gaining momentum. To succeed media industries need to adapt to all these changes, follow the latest trends in Web 2.0 and use the same tools for its own promotion, or even cooperate with pro-amateurs. In addition to this, this unspoken competition may lead to great innovations and experiments in the sphere of digital media.

On the other hand, to help prosumers co-exist peacefully with professional creative workers, educators need to teach them how to become good digital citizens that ‘practice safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and tools’ (Saltman, 2011). A new generation of internet users should understand the concept of fair use and copyright as well as learn how to protect their own digital work.

Bibliography

  • Kiryl Kalbasnikau

    It’s still such a dilemma for me also. I can’t take steady side of the question “To pay or not to pay?” for something I can find for free on the Internet. But still, being a representative of a third-world country I can afford not to choose that quickly and continue making some hybrid policy. But, the best option, as for me, is a direct-pay system, when you know what your are paying for and whom for sure.

    • Veronika Lindorenko

      Thanks Kiryl for your comment! It is a nice idea of having a direct-pay system. Probably, it is the right license decision for our digital media world. Still, now, one of the highest copyright costs are not transactions ones that include learning the scope of rights in the asset, identifying the right holder, and negotiating the terms of use. They are difficult to avoid or reduce due to the complexity of the law itself.

    • Respectfully, it shouldn’t be a dilemma. Music, movies, books, these are products that people created, they are pieces of work. You wouldn’t want to work for free, would you? (even though sometimes we have to. Hi there, music industry!)
      It’s the same with creators: if they don’t get paid for their products, they can’t create as I’m sure they also have bills to pay.
      But this is actually a dilemma not just for you but for many as it’s a pretty grey area. Sadly, the media and uninformed people like to disseminate the wrong message and inaccurate information which makes consumers think that artists are swimming in a pool of cash and one less album sale is not going to make a difference.
      Back in the days pre-Napster, the music industry did make a lot of money and, even though copyright holders (usually the record label back then) made most of it, artists were still doing pretty well.
      Nowadays, copyright holders – a lot of the times still the record label, be it a major or not – still make most of the money but that sum is substantially lower, which means the artist makes less and less and also means labels have decreased their investment spending considerably. If you think there’s more manufactured “singers” than ever now it’s because there is. These “products” are not only created to incite a hype but also to milk it [the hype] in every way possible in order for labels to still make all the money they once had whether it be from major stadium tours, endorsement deals, merchandise, etc.
      It’d be fantastic if people could understand all of this and pay for their music and support their local scene, especially independent artists who literally cannot afford to not have a day job on top of creating music, recording and touring.