Interestingly enough, conversations about intellectual property and free stuff on the internet came up in both my 2D and Computer classes right before spring break. I feel like this happens a lot in Foundations. The same thing comes up at the same time in different classes, and whether it’s totally orchestrated or not, I like it. In Computer class we looked at a case in which a girl’s church picnic photo on Flickr became the centerpiece of a Virgin Mobile campaign in Australia, and her family sued the company. With a situation like this one, I think there is a clear set of responsibilities on each side: internet resources, like Flickr, have a responsibility to let users know that their content will become public domain when posted online, unless there are privacy options offered, and users have a responsibility to pay attention and read the terms to which they are agreeing. If a program does let the user choose to keep content private, that privacy agreement must be honored. The internet is something that seems extremely difficult to regulate. In order to keep any semblance of safety or organization, there needs to be a mutual understanding between users and people in charge of resources that are used. As more kids are born into the world of readily accessible and ever-present internet, older generations need to make sure these kids are aware of how big and how public the internet really is. I think I’ve been extremely lucky to grow up with the internet, and I believe it is truly great thing when used safely and responsibly. I’m not sure how the lawsuit against Virgin Mobile over the Flickr photo went, but I feel like the family had little chance of winning because Flickr does warn users that content they upload becomes public. However, I also don’t think Virgin Mobile made a totally ethical decision in this case, and they could have very easily considered the girl’s age and asked permission to use the photo.
In Larry Lessig’s TED talk about laws that constrain creativity and user-generated content, he talks a lot about “remixes.” These remixes are created when users are inspired by other content and make those ideas their own through some kind of creative process. This could be Team Teamwork’s mashup of Mike Jones and music from Zelda, or a videogame based entirely on abstract expressionist art, or pretty much anything. Lessig argues that it is essential for people to have the ability to make remixes, and this means having free access to content on the internet. This brings me to some “unspoken rules” regarding public domain stuff, one of which is that content needs to be significantly altered enough in it remixed form in order for a user to legitimately get credit for that new form. Another is that if someone isn’t making money off of their remix, it’s totally fine for him to use the original content. I think these make sense, but they also raise a host of questions. For example, when is content significantly altered enough? I agree with Lessig that access to content is extremely important to cultural development, and I think these rules could potentially help inspire a system of public content that is regulated enough to respect intellectual property. Aside from these basic ideas for rules, one thing I think everyone should keep in mind regarding public content is ASKING FOR PERMISSION. The internet is super-fast and convenient, so simply asking, “Hey, do you mind if I use this?” takes less than a minute. It’s also common courtesy. Content on the internet is public, but identity is often clouded or totally anonymous, and I think this can bring out less considerate behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment