#terryflew

The question of who should regulate the Internet is a subject that has been fiercely debated all around the world. Previous concepts of blurring boundaries, privacy issues and the changing roles between consumer and producer which have emerged from the participatory culture new media now affords directly links to this debate as these new opportunities have caused new concerns and problems in relation to regulation.

These new technologies have introduced new complexities into law and governance. Terry Flew (2014) identifies three major challenges of new media law as; the intangibility of digital information’s, the global nature of the Internet and its network infrastructure and the question of whether Internet law can, should or does exist?

It is the global nature of the Internet technology that challenges traditional national structures of regulation.  ‘The internet itself, as a technology predicated on facilitating abundance, interoperability and a lack of respect for national borders, has problematised and undermined traditional structures of regulation’ (Freedman 2012: 97).  This in turn creates questions of can existing laws and regulations be sustained and do they actually address these complexities.

Given the complexities that new media technologies provide the main areas of governance should aim to be directed at; structures, transactions, content, conduct and behaviours (Sauter, 2014).  The redistribution of power amongst audiences that sees user-generated content being created has sparked a debate of Internet intellectual copyright laws.

Flew provides an interesting point regarding intellectual property “Embedded within copyright, then, are two competing normative visions of intellectual property. One is the notion that it can be privately owned as property, from which its owners can expect a reasonable level of remuneration from its use. The other is that intellectual property consists of ideas, concepts and forms of expression whose public circulation is central to the principles of freedom of speech, equitable access to public information, and economic efficiency.” (Flew 2014, 189).

His idea of privately owned property that is expressed through public circulation is highlighted through the viral content platform of YouTube. A recent example, really highlight for me the question of who owns the videos that are uploaded on YouTube and are there any intellectual property laws that govern the site?

Fellow Youtuber Zach Mander posted in July of last year, a spoof of a Cheeto Cannon, which shoots the delicious cheese-flavoured snacks through a cannon-like-device “to make eating on the couch less intensive” (Young, 2014).

  Zach, Source: YouTube

Arnott’s a couple of days couple launched their new ad campaign that follows a similar line of thinking: massive cannon, add Shapes, flavour hit ensues.

  Shapes, Source: YouTube

Pretty similar right? Well, Arnott’s spokesman claims it’s “merely incidental”. Mander in response said “We’re not one’s to point scotch fingers, but we think that we have been ripped off. We are happy for Arnott’s to use our idea, as long as they abide by the conditions we set out in our video response.”

Arnott’s have since responded to some of Mander’s demands, sending him and his friends 1200 boxes of shapes. While this time, it’s a pretty comedic outcome there are plenty of other instances of big companies and corporations used crowdsourcing and user-generated content to benefit their own needs. This again brings up my argument from my previous blog post - If corporations can use our participation against us in order to gain economic gain then aren’t they really the ones who hold all the power?

Legally speaking, YouTube’s Terms of Service outlines their stance on intellectual property stating:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

In short, YouTube own you. You do all the creative work and get nothing. This to me really highlights the need for new regulations and new ways of managing our freedom (Sauter, 2014).  We need to find new ways to regulate new media technologies that will benefit not only the big corporations but the little people too. 

References:

Flew, Terry, (2014). Chapter 11 : Internet Law, Policy and Governance. In Flew, Terry, New media, (pp.178 - 197). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sauter, Theresa. 2014 “New Media Communication: Week 7 Additional Resources.” Accessed April 15, 2014 http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232449_1

Stay Gold Pony Boy (2014, April 7). Arnott's Stole Our Idea [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdAaJr0rXFg&feature=youtu.be