Teens "Privacy" Online

Privacy. Americans want it. Teens crave it. And someone is always infringing on their rights to it.

Susan Barnes’ article, “ A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States” touches on the problems surrounding teens involvement with social networking sites and their disregard for keeping personal information private. She found that “students wanted to keep information private, but did not seem to realize Facebook is a public space.”  These social networking sites are a part of teens everyday life; a live diary for them to socialize and express themselves in. While reading this article I couldn’t help but remember how important it was for me at 15 that my Myspace page reflected “who I was” by adding my favorite songs and picking a background that was totally awesome. To me, Myspace was a place to post pictures, show my top friends, write song lyrics and talk to boys.


So with those posted, intimate and personal details of my life at 15, came the entitlement of privacy I felt I deserved, not to my friends on Myspace, but to my parents. In reality how private are teens Facebook and Myspace pages? Teens parents had to deal with their parents snooping through written diaries and journals, so does that mean it’s only fair they get to do the same with their kids online journals? Teens know they have to be careful about what they post because parents, schools, universities, and future employers are looking at their pages and deciding their future, without ever really giving them consent to do so. “A social exchange between friends has now become a way for universities to monitor student behavior.”

So with this “live diary” are teens giving too much personal information out, and endangering themselves? The topic of online predators comes up when discussing this for obvious reasons. But, like Barnes, I agree that the protection of children from online predators is only one aspect of the “privacy paradox”. The idea that parents need to be educated and in turn educate their kids about online privacy makes the most sense. I know from my own experience, posting my address to Myspace never happened because of the extensive knowledge of online predators I attained from my parents and school. I’m curious if my peers feel the same way, because even at 15, I knew better than to post my phone number or address online.

 Is Susan Barnes article, written in 2006, already dated in comparison to todays internet privacy standards? According to this article, teens are more concerned about their privacy than adults might think. A Pew Research Center study of 800 teens found that about half turned off location and tracking features in certain apps on their phones, and avoided downloading an app at all if they felt it requested too much information or data. Teens today have grown up with technology and understand, unlike Barnes’ teens, that if it is online, it is in a “public space” where privacy is a loose term.

A Privacy Paradox

How much privacy do you think you have on the Internet?  A lot? A little? None at all?

In the article "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States," Susan B. Barnes discusses how little privacy we actually have as social media users, especially when it comes to teenagers. Barnes talks about how younger generations are "pouring their minds, if not their hearts into cyberspace." Teenagers (and even some college students I happen to know) tend to use social networking sites as an outlet to clear their heads and stow their thoughts ...otherwise known as a modern, cyber diary.

Sites like Xanga, Myspace, Facebook and LinkedIn encourage people to share their personal information to connect with friends and co-workers, but the user is often fooled that their privacy is safer than it really is. I feel like most users (mainly older) know that their privacy in not protected - even with profiles being set to "private", however other users are unaware that revealing too much private information puts them in jeopardy and can lead to dangerous consequences. Online predators can collect online information, but they are not the only concern: marketers, government agencies and even school officials can access this data as well.

In a post 9/11 world, the United States government utilizes computer technology to exert some type of control over its citizens rather than protect their privacy. This brings up the question: Is this a privacy breach or public safety? In a recent NBC News article, a Southern California school district began monitoring teens' Facebook posts in efforts to prevent cyberbullying. When people apply for new jobs, companies also tend to check out the candidate's social media to ensure there is nothing inappropriate.

Recently a lot of citizens have been outraged at the NSA for essentially "spying" on us. Many people think this is an extraordinary breach of privacy, while others contradict this by claiming it is for national security. What constitutes how far is too far when it concerns the government and our personal information?

One very important issue that Internet and social media users need to remember is that social networking sites are cumulative. Replacing old information with new material does not delete the old info, it is archived somewhere in cyberspace. Even this blog will be archived for years to come!

That being said, whatever private information you put about yourself on the world wide web can be accessed for years and years. How much information about yourself do you broadcast on the web? How much is too much information? Where do you draw the line?

100 Ideas and Remixing

Gasser and Ernst consider the remix culture as a potential viable form of realty for the entertainment industry. The boom, they argue, would include “us,” the users/creators to which digital content is being created and fed, because this model of creation and distribution would be encouraged, and possibly a source of revenue for the parties involved. The underlying issue is that this new creative market, from its content to its distribution, is still beholden to antiquated laws and practices. As our technology flourishes, so too do the creative minds that create for entertainment and edification; although mass media is many generations old, the current model is arguably still younger than a decade.

The best point of the article is its last: “the full exploitation of the new opportunities presented by the Internet requires an effort by all players, last but not least by us, the users/creators of digital content.” As our media is consolidated and the niche markets grow ever larger, it becomes apparent that big industries and mass media are slow to provide to individual desires, which is often why artists turn to creating their own work, and why users search out that work and distribute it. It’s not only a matter of respect for a fellow creative type trying in the world: they have a better understanding of their demographic, and what that demographic understands in their influences.

Consider DJ/producer Flying Lotus, who created new music and curated some of his favorite artists for an in-game radio station for Grand Theft Auto V, on why he chose certain songs for the game’s caricatured California cities: “I would drive around and listen to OutKast and Aphex Twin in L.A., and I have my own experiences in the areas that they recreate in the game. I have that shit. I know what it's like listening to Aphex Twin driving down the beach. I get it, and it's special to think that someone else might think that, too. I made this shit for those people.”1 The progress here is that GTA V is a “big industry” text. But video games over the decades have diverged often with the music and film industries on views towards participatory culture. That artists like Flying Lotus can have creative freedom on this level, and to bring his own influences and ideas to the project regardless of the narrative or actual production of the video game, suggests a model for integration into participatory culture that other forms of media might look to for guidance.

Although I argued earlier in this post that the current model might be considered younger than a decade, Gasser and Ernst bring up a pertinent example regarding the 1990 N.W.A. song “100 Miles and Runnin’”. Here, a sample is used from a Funkadelic song and the new song is played in the soundtrack of a film. The copyright holders for the track “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” came at N.W.A. and won. A music activist group Downhillbattle launched a contest to show how a simple guitar riff can be shifted to create an endless amount of new meanings. The point stressed here is, if the original source is cited and attributed to the creation of a new meaning, the new work should be allowed to say its piece and be judged on the merits of its aesthetic and purpose. It should not be remembered solely for the act of “re-appropriation,” unless it is important in starting dialog on why this service toward creation is important in our current generation.

¹http://pitchfork.com/features/update/9220-flying-lotus/

p.s. remix culture is some great music, y'all

Married to the Printing Press

Regulatory structures must evolve in tandem with their given arena to minimize conflict. An administration that increases regulation to counteract the changes in its industry will struggle until it cedes to change as well. That the current landscape of Copyright Law and Fair Use is a battlefield of money grabbing and legal squabbles is no surprise. Modern copyright law takes no account of participatory culture, settling for broad or reactionary laws that stifle creativity.

This is not to say that the intention of copyright is entirely negligible; when one’s income depends on monetizing their art, securing it is essential. Derivative works laws insure that reproduction will result in authorial attribution and financial compensation. Yet the associated issue of Fair Use is an increasingly vague arena of what constitutes original content. Something like Doggie Woggiez Poochie Woochiez that constructs an entire narrative out of VHS ripped dog commercials and TV shows would most likely be considered a transformative work by most that see it. Yet its appropriation of clearly copyrighted material would prove negligible should a court determine it “contributes nothing additional” or “undermines the market of the original work”. Thankfully for the project’s producers’ Everything is Terrible, their niche market as well as a comparably meager possibility for financial gain on the part of the companies ensures they can continue to profit from the film.  Ten seconds of a Wishbone episode is nothing in comparison to the potential earnings from a “Grey Album” lawsuit.

 

With big money at stake, the companies’ only squeeze harder as the consumers-turned-producers continue to obtain and utilize works in creative ways. Consider it the natural side effect of exponential growth in a short frame of time. Gone is the era of gradual content dissemination; consumers can receive content and re-appropriate it with near simultaneity. Copyright laws founded in already outdated modes of acquisition can’t properly contend with the freedom of modern media. As Paul Goldstein observes “copyright doctrine today remains wedded to the economics of the printing press.” 

Commercial image and content integration is the next step in creative re-interpretation.  George Lucas might fight against fan-fiction, but there’d be no Star Wars without The Hidden Fortress. Entities such as Disney integrate themselves into the mass consciousness, yet their creators subvert laws in order to retain financial control. Disney World and Mickey Mouse are iconic institutions with far-reaching cultural relevance, yet the public at large is denied their use for personal expression. People will still create with the content anyway. As technology progresses, increased consumer participation with the media is guaranteed. How lawmakers will ultimately address this inevitability is still uncertain.

If participatory culture and copyright laws cannot coexist effectively in their present form, what specifically can be done? Do you think companies will be keen to cede ground in the hopes of securing some other form of monetization on their works? Or do you disagree and think tougher regulation is the answer?

should we share?

This weeks reading “Remix: How Creativity Is Being Strangled by the Law” brings up the similarities between remix culture and pirating. The lines between these activities are, as described in the chapter, a legal mess. This chapter proposes that information be of free use if it is for good or creative purposes. But It seems to be much easier said than legally enforced. I’ll admit that I don’t have a sure fire theory to solve these disputes, nor can I easily define what we should and shouldn't share, but I think it boils down to a attitude of respect in a community of creators.

 In my personal experience the vastness of the internet and digital sharing allows me to access so much information without much concern as to if the way I am using this information is legal or not, and I don’t really see that changing. I would not go as far to say that I am comfortable debating media law, but because I am very much a part of remix culture, a frequent user of digital sharing technology, and because I both create my own content and work with previously existing information it is important to me that I am able to define what I think appropriate and fair uses of this information are to me as an individual.

Ideally I would like to use any bit of information as it suits me may it be photographs, music, or video. Of course this is unreasonable, but I wouldn’t say it is completely unreasonable, so where do i draw the line? I think the line is drawn when someone else is profiting from your intellectual material. In the simplest terms it is both unreasonable and illegal for me to use a song someone published in my video, or a photograph I found online in my magazine and not at least offer them part of what I receive in exchange for my work.

This article references several cases in which artists were sued for repurposing the art of others, the cases and settlements vary, but it begs the question, what is fair and what is theft? When I look at Koons sculpture or Prince’s reappropriations I feel like these artists are remixing previous ideas and but the original texts is still obvious and important in the meaning of the reappropriated text, but could these artists have made the same effect without the originals? I think the answer varies per case, and the question is one that is nearly impossible to answer.

I think the true answer to who gets to remix what is that artists need to respect each other and fairly cite and compensate their collaborators. Realistically that isn’t something that anyone can assure but it is something I try to abide by.

So I wonder, to what levels are my peers willing to share their content with others? Where do you draw these lines? When is it necessary to use existing information and when is it not?

A Generation of Pirates

I feel the need to start this blog with a confession. I don’t want to lie to my (many) readers. You deserve to know the truth, and I hope that after my confession you will choose to accept me and continue to read this article. Well, here it goes..I am a criminal. It all started in 2002, when at the young age of 12 I decided to download the Moulin Rouge soundtrack off my newly acquired Limewire software. 

More specifically I’m considered a pirate by today's copyright extremists, and I’m willing to guess that a majority of you are guilty of this as well. Copyright wasn’t written for the internet, and begs to be amended to today's standards.
 Lawrence Lessig’s, “REMIX: How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law” focuses on this disconnect between copyright laws and today’s technology. He says proper regulation of these laws has to reflect changes in technology and that what may have worked at one point, might not anymore. 

So, what’s not working?

 When you torrent Drake’s new album, do piracy charges cross your mind? When a 14 year old girl edits together clips from her favorite TV show to Rhianna’s Love The Way You Lie..does she stop to remember she’s using The CW’s footage and that she forgot to ask Rhianna’s permission to use her song? 

This remix is an example of what should be changed about the copyright law; amateurs making remixes need to be exempted and given “free use rather than fair use”. Copyright stifles creative works of young people everywhere, while also making Youtube’s job very difficult; sifting through and flagging thousands of remixes posted by fans everyday. 

Lessig talks of “Hybrid economies, where a commercial entity leverages a sharing economy”. Yelp and Urbanspoon are examples of hybrid economies, where the masses can state why their favorite restaurant is so great, which in turn gives value to Olive Garden and its wonderfully addictive breadsticks. Why couldn’t this work with movies and music? Jane posts her One Tree Hill Love story to Facebook, and in return 34 of her friends decide to tune into The CW. “We need to practice respect for this new generation of creators.”

How does this work with peer to peer sharing? How can the music industry and/or artists be compensated without labeling today’s youth as criminals? 

The band Radiohead gave one example in 2007, releasing their album “In Rainbows”, on a pay whatever you wish strategy. Allowing fans to legally download the album for free, or add to a “digital tip jar”. While this album was still torrented illegally by millions, it also SOLD millions worldwide, surpassing the sales of their previous album.  
  

The 'In Rainbows' Experiment: Did It Work?

These two examples help make the argument that copyright laws of the past need a drastic makeover, to better show off their new, tech savvy generation's skills. This generation will continue to remix and download regardless, so why not allow them to do so without the title "criminal" or "pirate" looming over their shoulder?

Cats, Ducks & Bears - OH MEME!

Cats being grumpy, ducks giving advice and bears confessing things? Only on the Internet.

Grumpy Cat

I browse social media just as much as the average 21-year-old college student, but I especially like to spend my time on Reddit, a social news and entertainment website that is flooded with what is known as Internet Memes. 

What's a meme you ask? How do you even say it? I would be willing to bet 100 cupcakes that everyone and anyone who uses some type of social media - or even the Internet for that matter - has encountered a meme, whether they were aware of it or not. 

Memes are part of a participatory culture. A meme, pronounced "meem" (not "me, me"...trust me, if you say this you will probably be mercilessly ridiculed by peers), is an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. More specifically, according to Patrick Davison in "The Language of Internet Memes", an internet meme is a piece of culture - typically a joke - which gains influence through online transmission. 

Sound familiar now? Basically things become memes through cultural acceptance. When ideas, fads or crazes begin trending and sky-rocket in popularity they essentially become memes. Take for instance :-) . We all know this to be the universal symbol for a smile or smiley face. Or take the expression LOL -  a response synonymous with laughing. Anther example is the Harlem Shake, a dance craze that went viral with the help of YouTube last year. And let's not forget about planking. All of these are considered memes. 

Confession Bear

These online artifacts are simple to find and have easy to learn rules. Davison argues that the "speed of transmission" of a meme is increased in an incredible way on the Internet, which I find to be extremely true. Memes spread from person to person quickly, but the speed in which they multiply on the internet is outrageous! They reproduce at the speed of light because they are easily replicated and easy to create. 
Some of the most popular style of memes are pictures accompanied by text. Anybody can access and create popular memes using online generators like Make a Meme or Quick Meme. There are (quite literally) too many to count, so I'll just list a few popular ones: Grumpy Cat, Confession Bear, Actual Advice Mallard, Success Kid, Socially Awkward Penguin, Good Guy Greg, the Most Interesting Man in the World and of course, Overly Attached Girlfriend. 

Overly Attached Girlfriend

Overly Attached Girlfriend derives from a YouTube video that went viral, created by a girl named Laina from our very own Denton, Tx! She was even named one of the top "15 People Made Famous by the Internet in 2012." 

One very significant fact about the universe of memes is the ability to remain anonymous. Anonymity is a huge characteristic surrounding the Internet and due to the simplicity of creating and replicating memes, remaining anonymous is easy, if not inevitable. Not having attributions makes a network more likely to be generative because it enables of type of freedom for users. So by the logic we have discussed, staying anonymous becomes an idea that is spread from user to user, thus making it a meme itself. Therefore, non-attribution is essentially a meme that is making the creation of other memes more likely. 

Pretty Inception-like, huh? 

What are your thoughts on memes? Which one is your personal favorite?

Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars?

Living in a digital age provides the public – even us ordinary people – with tools and software to produce amazing creations. Gone are the days of relying on expensive cameras, heavy equipment and costly budgets in order to make a trendy, popular film. Today’s wide variety of gadgets and technologies (smart phones, computers, webcams, etc) can turn anyone into the next Spielberg, Scorsese or Tarantino, at just the touch of their fingertips! In Henry Jenkins’ essay, Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?, he discusses the movie Star Wars and how the popularity of the film acted as a catalyst for amateur filmmakers worldwide (which can be proven by the countless number of spoofs and remakes...come on, I know you've seen some). Jenkins states that the films are an outcome of a fan’s dream to live out or at least be the mastermind behind his/her own fantasy. Fans began making-up stories and re-enactments into short films and converging them with music, dialogue and costumes from the actual film.

For example, George Lucas in Love (a parody of not only Shakespeare in Love, but also Star Wars) was created by USC students about the famous Star Wars director suffering from writers block who eventually falls for a girl with buns on the side of her head (sound familiar?). The short film skyrocketed in popularity and even outsold the DVD Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (1999) in its opening week.

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars is another parody created by Evan Mather, using Star Wars action figures to convey a “classic space opera, with the hip pop culture-speak and violence of Tarantino.”

But all of the publicity surrounding the Star Wars parodies serves as a reminder of the most distinctive quality of these amateur films—the fact that they are so public. These spoofs remain amateur, in the sense that they are made on low budgets, produced and distributed in non- commercial contexts, and generated by nonprofessional filmmakers who do not earn their revenue through their work, but in all actuality can be some pretty professional work.

However, due to different advances in technology and more accessibility to certain media, there seems to be uncertainty in terms of authorship, ownership and distribution, which creates problems between consumers and producers over intellectual property. The Internet allows us to take someone else’s work and make it our own. But people constantly take videos and change them up to create something new, we see it on Social Media all the time!

But is it fair to take the intellectual property of the original artist and remix it? Where do you really draw the line? 

Is it right for the Media Industries to try and stop people from doing this by imposing regulations and restrictions? Is it a lack of originality or an accepted appreciation in today's culture?

Personally, I think that it is a widely accepted appreciation and something that everyone loves to watch as much, if not more than the real thing. Parodies and spoofs of any kind are an outlet for fans to brainstorm, create, and live out their own ideas and fantasies, while simultaneously entertaining everyone else and promoting laughs. I think when someone takes material and remixes it, the remix becomes theirs because it was their idea to re-do it in some way, shape or form.

What do you think?