Ownership on the Web
In “Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net”, John Perry Barlow compares digitized property to “sailing into the future on a sinking ship”. It has become increasingly hard to control the information leaked onto the web. When information goes online, it essentially becomes every person’s property. The author comments that for so long, legal efforts focus on trying to rearrange the words of the law, offer stern warning, or essentially just deny it. Barlow said they need to develop new methods for these new circumstances. There is no proper definition of digital property. Since there is no definition, how are people paid for the work they do with their mind? From blog posts to music, information is being copied and downloaded.
Music is a huge industry that has been hit tremendously by information sharing on the internet. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, music downloads generated $2.6 billion in revenue in 2014, a decrease of 8.5 percent from the year before. Streaming made $1.87 billion last year, and for the first time ever, overtook CD sales. Not all artists are happy about streaming. In fact, Taylor Swift actually pulled all her music from Spotify, as she believes, “I think there should be an inherent value placed on art.” At the 2014 VMA’s in her acceptance speech, she thanked her fans saying, “what you did by going out and investing in music and albums, you’re saying that you believe what I believe — that music is valuable and should be consumed in albums, and albums should be consumed as art, and appreciated.” Streaming allows for listeners to obtain music for free, downloading and streaming songs and making it their own property without paying that artist.
Another area hurt by new media and the internet is media networks. Major networks offered free products; in return consumers became the payment, as companies sold their eyeballs to advertisers. With netflix and a move towards digital advertising, the amount of eyeballs are decreasing causing a drop in revenue.
When users illegally download content, no one is there to witness it. In cyberspace, there is no boundary to contain the scene of the crime, and also, no definition of crime. Humans have not been in this place long enough to establish a concrete Social Contract that conforms to the strange new condition of that world. Whenever there is such divergence between the law and social practice, it is never society that adapts. In history, it was usually those with the biggest army that would take control and ownership. Nowadays, it is not the biggest army but the best lawyer that wins ownership. An interesting point by the author explains how the law protected expression and to express was to make physical. Essentially, ideas that are written down can be protected but it has to be on paper.
Information is property that doesn’t take up space; instead it takes up time. It is a verb, and it it something that happens in the field of interaction between minds or objects and other information. Information is also something that always has to be on the move usually raising price and demand. Information can also be transferred without leaving the possession of the original order. If Taylor Swift sells her songs online, she still remembers the words. This makes it harder to understand the true owner. If information is only shared or transferred, how are you able to know who the true owner is.
Barlow also comments on reality, and how it is essentially just an edit. People are willing to pay for the authority of those editors whose filtering point of view seem to fit best. Every text on a subject that one buys, is a point of view or an opinion. Thus, if you buy that text, you are not receiving the true reality, just a reality that is crafted by the author. No information is pure information, it is all facts with a spin on it.
Measuring the value of information is very much based on its scarcity. Usually, physical goods go up in value if there is less supply. Like the well known economic measurement: high demand plus low supply equals a high value. In contrast, low demand plus high supply equals a low value. However, information is sort of the opposite. Soft goods increase in value as they grow more common. Think of a popular website; the more well known it becomes, the more demand there is. Thus, it would only make sense to give it away for free so it spreads quickly and picks up popularity.
I am torn between respecting artists rights and free music. I, like my other millennial colleagues, want music on demand. We want it fast, and most importantly, we want it free. The web is our playground, and we have mastered it. We know the shortcuts and hideaways, and where to find the free music and videos. As a digital native, nothing is impossible to discover. However, I also understand the ethicality, or should I say, unethicality of illegally downloading free music. Sites such as mp3skull, and youtubetomp3 make it extremely easy to find your favorite tune and turn it into a downloadable link. Even further, Spotify and Soundcloud offer an easy vehicle to listen to free songs. But, Taylor Swift has a strong and valid point when she says it is unfair for artists. Society has made it increasingly easy but also hard to be an artist in this digital age. Although new media has created new opportunities to make it big online, it has also made it harder to make money off their CD’s. Like mentioned before, streaming has surpassed CD sales. The real question is how to balance new media technology with artists rights. How do they maintain ownership over their songs when the web makes it easy for others to take ownership? Perhaps it is time to strengthen laws to protect artists and start wiping out certain websites that allow for the illegal downloading of songs.
