Welcome to the Blogosphere

Cyber Law Centre

Habermas (cited in McKee 2005, p.6) explains the public sphere as “A domain of our social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed [where] citizens…deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion…[to] express and publicise their views.” 

Carpignano (cited in McKee 2005, p. 7) notes that the idea of the public sphere was born in the 17^th century as “the outrageous concept that every person in society should be treated equally” emerged. So in the 17^th century the public sphere was a physical space where people from all backgrounds could have their say on matters that were of interest in the town they were in. Fast forward to now and the virtual world of Web2.0 and we have the new virtual public sphere or Blogosphere.

 Blogs allow people of all walks of life (as long as they have an internet connection) to let loose on what they think on particular topics. Bloggers also have the opportunity to engage in debates via the comments section on issue they may have differing opinions on. There is proof of minorities having their say as well as a study into the 2007 election showed minor blogs were dominant in putting their opinion forward (Bruns, 2010, pg. 281). Bruns continues through to mention blog readers follow a flow as these minor blogs link to major blogs which in turn have linked to mainstream media giving the less powerful less of a voice (2010, pg. 282). 

If we move to social media we can see the like of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube giving voice to minorities again but are these opinions healthy and evidence based debates? Bruns explains (2010, p. 285) that in order to engage in public discussion a person must put their social, personal and lived experiences aside. This allows for a legitimate public debate but looking over my Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts not much of that is happening. 

Flickr

The public sphere in the virtual world is a sphere of ‘Trolling’ where attacks and opinions are made based on social or personal feelings. If in the odd chance you come across a legitimate debate, you’ll be sure to find someone arguing based on illegitimate factors. In essence, the traditional public sphere is in hiding.

References

Bruns, A, Burgess, G, Highfield, T, Kirchoff, L & Nicolai, T 2010, ‘Mapping the Australian Networked Public Sphere’, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 29, no. 3, retrieve 30 August 2013, <http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/29/3/277>

McKee, A 2005, The Public Sphere, Cambridge University Press, retrieved 30 August 2013, <http://equella.deakin.edu.au/deakin/integ/gen/f1dcb0d5-236b-dd38-3359-3597f69442c1/1/?attachment.uuid=3aeb835b-3ead-4973-84b2-245b66813ea7>

The Prosumer

According to Toffler (1980, p 266) prosumption came about after the separation of the producer and consumer drove a wedge into society. Not long after though, he believed the capitalist world was moving away from this separation and into its "primordial economic form" of prosumption (Ritzer, G & Jurgensen, N, 2010, p. 17). The modern society is what Ritzer (2010, p. 17) calls the "prosumer society" in which we all produce and consume the same aspects that make up our identity.
So how exactly are we prosumer’s? How does it form our identity?
Ritzer gives multiple examples of the prosumer society that we live in like:

· - Being a caller on a call-in radio show
· -Using do it yourself medical technologies
· -Being part of reality TV

This has expanded to the internet as well with sites like Facebook and Instagram allowing users to create the social structure of their account and interact with people they allow within their structure.
People are allowing their identity being consumed online line by producing the identity that they wish people to consume. There is no longer a middle man to form the identity of a subject or person for you as this new age of the public sphere is allowing people to make their own decisions.

Any prosumer in the social world though needs to be aware that their identity isn't only being consumed by those we let into our social structure. For example Facebook is profiting off our use of their web code. Facebook sells the information we share on their infrastructure as a trade for them letting us use their design for free. 
Third parties now have our information which allows advertising companies to use the internet and advertise specific products to us. This is based on what we say on Facebook, what we like and who we become friends with (their information). If you like a whole heap of dance music artists, you’ll be flooded with ads about dance music. Prosumption can be a dangerous idea, that can definitely affect you if not upfront.

References:

Ritzer, G & Jurgenson, N 2010, 'Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer'', Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13-32
Toffler, A 1980 The Third Wave., William Morrow, New York

Innovators or Pirates?

Wikimedia

"Blaming the victim is a way of [people] maintaining belief in a just world" (Martin, Moore & Salter 2010).

This quote is a very important one I believe, as we know in most cases the victim always loses out. The argument of DJ's and hip hop artists pirating and ripping off of other peoples work came about in the mid to late 80's. A new type of music production had been created through advancements in technology called sampling.
The documentary Copyright Criminals (2009) goes through the history of sampling and how it began to define and become so controversial in hip hop music. Dj's were made out to be the victim in the 80's and were the blame of this sampling controversy. By watching the documentary though, it seems artists only started to care about the use of their own material when Hip Hop became a money making machine.
They seem split on the idea as Aerosmith front man Steven Tyler teamed up with Run DMC to produce 'Walk this Way', a record which Tyler sung on. Some artists though, as highlighted in the documentary, didn't approve of what Hip Hop was doing as they believed they were just ripping off songs. The problem with that argument though is that it's hard to find what the origin of music actually was. Inventions were built on other people's ideas and inventions, for example the car. Did the inventor of the car give a portion of profit to the person who invented the battery, door, door handle, fuel or even colour?
A remix, bootleg or mash-up are re-imaginings of songs that have been previously created and altered for a new genre or culture. When you hear a guitar riff in a song, do you think the person who created the guitar and guitar strings was paid a slice to allow the artist to create that sound? It seems hypocritical to me that lawyers be brought in to sue a DJ for a 1 bar sample taken from a song. As DJ Shock G said, "What a photographer is to the painter, is what the modern producer, DJ and computer musicians are to the instrumentalist" (Copyright Criminals, 2009).
This attempt of devaluation by suits against samplers backfired as sampling is ever present in the fastest growing production of music in the world, electronic music.

This could be of interest ----> http://soundsjustlike.com/  <---- Give it a go!

References:

Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C. 2010, ‘Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry’, First Monday, vol. 15, no. 12, retrieved 8 August 2013, <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680]>

Copyright Criminals 2009, video recording, Changing Images, USA