Palfrey and Gasser boil down digital media distribution into an ‘upside and downside’ (a pro and a con), something they do quite often in this book:
Creativity is the upside of this brave new world of digital media. The downside is law-breaking. The vast majority of Digital Natives are currently breaking copyright laws on a regular basis. By and large, many young people don’t pay for music.
P & G also insist that Digital Natives are forcing us to rethink the system because social norms are at odds with copyright laws. So what? Another social norm is jaywalking.
Each week hundreds of UMass students gracefully disregard this law in front of cops, clergymen, professors and peers. But who stops them? Not traffic.Maybe we should re-think this law because after all, shouldn’t traffic just stop and let us go, pedestrians are really just exercising their creativity. How can we become more accomodating to them?
You may argue: Jaywalking is such a minor infraction because it does not effect anyone. There should be no law against jaywalking.
To which I respond in 2 ways:
- Jaywalking is a traffic epidemic which effects those who pay a high premium (insurance, gas,tax,etc) to keep their car on the road- they expect expedient, efficient traveling. They are also mocking the state funding, department of public works, engineers and state employees that contributed to the creation and implementation of sidewalks.
- Jaywalking is a high risk behavior, although the chance of an accident may seem unlikely, lots of people are injured or killed as a direct result.
Palfrey and Gasser believe that we should re-examine the laws for jaywalkers because they are changing social norms. They might say (theoretically, for the sake of argument) that jaywalkers are simply capitalizing on their environment, less cars are on the road–due to the economy, environment, etc– therefore the walker has gained an advantage. The walker is just being creative. They write, “simply piling on more protections to the age-old framework, which is ill-fitting to the ditial era, is not the answer…there’s ample evidence that innovation continues to abound in the online environment. ”
Yes, the world of digital media is changing, that has become abundantly clear. Individual artists are responding; bands are sharing more music online and “creators” are taking more liberties with editing media. Record labels are focusing less on album sales and more on touring revenue. Consumers are becoming more frugal, spending less on plastic cases and more on mp3’s. So is there really a need to change the system? No. The system adapts.
Copyright law is not perfect, but it is pretty damn close. When we ignore the artist’s right to property we devalue the artist. The problem with music is it’s form, it seems so indispensable. Think about that Beatles song that you love: Yellow Submarine. Yellow Submarine has been played millions of times on the radio, re-released several hundred times, recreated by other artists and paradied in movies and television. Now, think about your favorite novel: Fantastic Voyage by Isaac Asimov, a science fiction novel inspired by a screenplay (Source: Wikipedia, Yellow Submarine and Fantastic Voyage). Both Fantastic Voyage and Yellow Submarine were released in 1966. Now, imagine that you’ve lost your copy and an anonymous stranger approaches you with a pirated copy of Fantastic Voyage, which looks, feels and reads just like the original (minus copyright material on cover page)…do you buy it? Probably not. Plagiarizing an author’s work is, as we are taught, a crime against humanity. But what about that Beatles track with a chorus set to the tune of Krier and Helmer’s 1906 “Le Reve Passe,” full of special effects, stomping, clapping, whistling and a conga line. I guess Ringo won’t mind.
