It's really interesting to compare how the NZ and Australian media re reporting on the Bali Nine in comparison to say the Wikipedia entry on these drug traffickers. Why is it that the NZ and Aussi media portray these men as victims of a corrupt legal system, as good Christians who are rehabilitated when they are criminals whose crime had the potential to make them fortunes and destroy other's lives? How exactly does the media achieve this representation of these men?
QUESTION ONE: The relationship(s) between media and wider society
Statement C: “Whilst technology might change the way content is delivered, it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to ignore the [copy] rights of those who make the content.” Anthony Healey With reference to the quotation above, analyse the relationship(s) between one or more media AND wider society. The morality issue of copyright is one of the most argued and discussed media related topics in society today. Reinforced by New Zealand’s recent law change in regards to copyright, it seems the public are largely divided about whether they should or should not illegally download material, disregarding its copyright. Although to many, Anthony Healey, it seems, included, this is an entirely black and white issue, perhaps there is something to be said for considering both sides of the argument and indeed, examining the “shades of grey”. There is no doubt that the internet, and the ability to freely download content, has had a negative impact on the profits of both the film and music industry. While previously one had to purchase a CD to hear their favourite artists work, now it is readily available online at no cost at all. The same goes for films – a student pays $14 to go to most movie theatres in New Zealand today, more if said film is in 3D, but there is now the option of illegally downloading the film and watching it in the privacy of our own homes. This issue is, as mentioned above, one of ethics or morality, more so than a legal debate. We all know there are laws in place to stop illegal downloading, but this threat of a fine or imprisonment is so tiny it is largely ignored. More contested is whether downloading is the right thing to do, or rather whether it is so wrong it should be socially unacceptable. Anyone who downloads knows they are, in effect, stealing from their favourite artists or directors, but this knowledge is often outweighed by the thought of purchasing that CD or DVD for $25. Many soothe their guilt by reminding themselves that they are not distributors. They may be committing a crime but only for their private benefit – they don’t actually make any money out of it. We tell ourselves that artists like Lady Gaga and studios like Warner Bros can afford to lose this money, and a common theme among New Zealanders is not downloading music of local bands or New Zealand film, as ours is an industry that cannot afford to lose this revenue. What we often forget, as a recent article in “The Guardian” tells us, is by downloading film it is not the creators of Hollywood Blockbusters we are hurting. The more of a loss the Hollywood studios sustain thanks to download, the more likely they are to only invest in films they see as a “sure thing”. As a result, the new Transformers film will almost certainly be produced, but more independent film-makers are turned away. We miss out of lower budget, arguably more creative “indie” films – movies like “Juno” and “Blue Valentine”, as they are seen as less likely to see to the mainstream. This is seriously worrying for any fan of the independent film, and perhaps for many a reason why we shouldn’t download. This argument, of course, fails when it comes to those who are only interested in downloading Hollywood Blockbusters and music off the Top 40. Most New Zealand teenagers have disregarded completely the new downloading law. The law only applies to P2P (or person to person, peer to peer) downloads – downloads where people involved simultaneously upload, or torrent, on websites or programs such as Live Wire (now closed down), U Torrent or Pirate Bay.org. The law also comes with a “3 strikes” policy, and it is up to the owner of copyrighted material to contact the internet provider of the downloader if they feel their content is being downloaded illegally. So many New Zealanders feel safe. Some download material as before, simply waiting for their first warning. Which results in no fine or formal punishment. Others stay away from P2P downloads, instead directly downloading from sites such as YouTube.com using video 2mp3.net or other sites. Many have simply ignored the law, realising the likelihood of Sony Entertainment chasing down an Aucklander for downloading a song by an artist off their label is miniscule. The New Zealand government appears to have made a step forward in protecting artists’ content, but in reality this was a scare tactic for the public and little in the way of downloading has changed. Many arguments also circulate that though artists lose their profit, in many other unquantifiable ways they may benefit from this downloading of their content. The most common defence is, of course, “I wouldn’t have bought the CD anyway”. In an age when teenagers, and the rest of the public, have easy access to almost every song or film ever made, we consume high amounts of this content. We can download 20 CDs in the blink of an eye, but to purchase them would cost upwards of $400. Because of this many fans argue that without downloading they wouldn’t be exposed to the music of so many artists. The artists would have less fans, and wouldn’t make so much profit in live concerts or merchandise, one cannot download a t-shirt, or the experience of seeing an artist perform live. We can also consider how artists react to this illegal downloading. Those who oppose it strongly often come off as greedy and money-hungry, while those who understand it as a fact of life that comes with the benefits of the internet are viewed as far more aware by the vast majority of society. Two notable examples are Metallica and Radiohead. Metallica was one of the first bands to publicly oppose downloading, and indeed publicly and aggressively berate fans who downloaded their music. The drummer announced in a television interview that those who illegally downloaded their music would have “the might of Metallica” upon them, and they engaged in several lawsuits against their own fans. Needless to say this did not greatly improve their public image, and many regard Metallica as ‘dinosaurs’ for having little insight into the ways of the internet, and the changing nature of how we access technology. Radiohead directly juxtaposes Metallica’s attitude. Radiohead has been known to force their label to drop lawsuits against fans who have illegally downloaded their music and have even put one of their albums online and invited fans to choose how much they wanted to pay for it. They post new music on the internet and invite fans to remix it or create their own versions, having a strong belief in the continuation of the creative process outside of their own band. This take on new technology is an insight into the music of the future; it is clear the internet is a near unstoppable force, and Radiohead is attempting to work with their fans to manipulate this technology in new and exciting ways, while Metallica has tried to, and in some cases successfully, sued their fans for enjoying their music illegally, at no cost. T&D has created an interesting video examining YouTube’s policies when it comes to copyrighted material. Anyone who uploads a video to YouTube has the option of registering it in their system as a copyrighted video. Every video uploaded to YouTube is then cross-referenced against this database of copyrighted material, and if my video is considered to infringe upon that copyright the owner of the content has the choice of whether or not to remove the video or allow it to stay on YouTube. YouTube does not automatically delete videos that infringe upon copyright as in many cases these newer videos cause an increase in publicity and therefor revenue for the owners of the original content. An example of this is Chris Brown’s “Forever”, the owner of the rights to the song being Sony Music. 19 months after “Forever” was released, an American couple posted a video of their wedding – their entire wedding party, including the bride and groom, had danced up the aisle to this song. The video currently has over 70,000000 hits on YouTube. A year and a half after the song was produced it re-entered the charts and reached number 4. The couple, Jill and Kevin have a website, have appeared on multiple talk shows and have used their new found fame to raise money for a charity committed to stopping domestic violence. Though this video was technically an infringement of copyright, Sony chose to leave it on YouTube and this was, in fact, beneficial for them. Copyright infringements having a positive effect is something Anthony Healey does not seem to have accounted for in his opinion that copyright should not be ignored, even though technology is changing the way content is delivered. Another noteworthy point of discussion are artists like “Girl Talk”. Girl Talk creates his music using material of other artists, and forming these into “mash-ups”. “He is extremely popular, internationally recognised on today’s music scene – he is even performing here in New Zealand, at next year’s Big Day Out. The fact is, Girl Talk’s music is illegal. He does not obtain permission to use other people’s material. If he did, as film-maker Brett Gaylor points out in his 2008 documentary “RIP: A remix manifesto” it would cost Girl Talk approximately $4,000,000 for each album, not including production of the actual music. Gaylor argues that ignoring copyright limits creativity. The work of today is built on that of the past, but “the past always attempts to control the future”. He uses Walt Disney as his prime example – it is no secret that Walt Disney used old stones in the public domain to produce some of his most famous films – “Snow White”, “Cinderalla” and “The Jungle Book” to name a few, and this was no crime – he reinvented and added his own touch onto work already created. After Walt Disney’s death, however, the Disney Corporation has toughened regulations surrounding any Disney work and indeed this has led to increased copyright law in general. Nothing created by Disney is released into the public doman for at least 70 years after the date of its publication, and Disney is renowned for heartlessly enforcing heir copyright law, there have been news articles about the Disney corporation requesting a preschool repaint their exterior walls, as they had Micky Mouse painted on them. Perhaps, after taking all aspects into account, we can be left with a sort of middle-ground. It can be said that Anthony Healey is narrow minded in assuming all copyright laws should be followed to the letter, but we also should not mindlessly download whatever we like – it hurts the artist we admire and the future of the film and music industries. The downloading of film to such an extent has led to the arguably substandard movies being shown in the vast majority of cinemas today. If all copyright law was abided by, we would not have artists like Girl Talk. YouTube videos like the “Forever” wedding dance or Sophia Grace’s (a five year old English girl, dressed in a tutu) version of Super Bass by Nicki Minaj wouldn’t exist for our viewing pleasure. Maybe the answer as to what is right and wrong in terms of copyright is simply undefinable – every breach of copyright law needs to be examined individually to truly discover whether it is ethical. This is, of course, impossible, so we are only left with our own discretion and opinion of what is important to us, personally. What we can guarantee is a farce like illegal downloading will not be easily stopped and perhaps instead of fighting it we should be working towards working alongside fans of music and film, as Radiohead have, to find more creative and constructive ways of utilising this new technology. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |