RIP Google?

That title ("RIP Google?") is a bit misleading. What I'm talking about is actually a lot bigger than just Google—I'm talking about the potential collapse of all search engines and content-hosting sites, from Google and YouTube to Facebook and Twitter.

(If you're curious enough that you want to skip the background info, start reading at the Google logo.)

Admittedly, government regulation of the the mass media has always been rather controversial—especially in the Information Age, with all of its new media-related technologies (perhaps most notably, the Internet).

But I think it's safe to say that, as the government regulates and deregulates (whichever way the wind is blowing), most people can get on with their lives without following this debate too closely. This is because most regulations and deregulations either don't directly affect the media product (for instance, a lot of regulations define what a corporation can own) or bring about really subtle changes (like what kind of advertising can appear in children's programming). So most people, myself included, don't usually feel the force of media regulation sharply enough to pay it much attention.

But, if certain Italian politicians have their way, that all may change.

According to the New York Times article "Larger Threat Is Seen in Google Case" by Rachel Donadio, in Italian courts, after a high-stakes battle—the Italian government vs three Google executives—the courts just declared a victor: Italy. (Doesn't surprise me too much, since there was an obvious home court advantage.)

Italy—and in particular its media-controlling Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi—had accused Google of being too slow to remove an offensive video (of teenagers bullying a kid with autism) from its system. And the courts ruled that the three executives were personally responsible for that video, even though they didn't make it, didn't promote it, probably didn't even watch it before this case brought it to their attention—they managed the site that listed it as a search result, and according to the Italian judicial system that was enough to make them liable for it.

As you may have guessed, the real significance of this ruling isn't about autism or discrimination, but about setting the precedent of holding a website accountable for the content that it makes available. In other words, what this case accomplished was to say that any site that hosts or searches content is responsible for that content.

And that's a big deal. That's talking about everything from search engines and file-sharing sites to blogging platforms and social networking sites. If this precedent is applied across the board, these kinds of sites will have to monitor every single video, picture, website, etc. that crosses through their systems. So the YouTube staff will either have to watch every single video that gets uploaded; the Google people will have to read every single website that you can find through their search engine; Facebook will have to monitor every single profile, video, picture, etc.; you get the picture. With the amount of content that gets added to these sites every minute, a job like that is practically impossible.

So, in order to conform to expectations like Italy is trying to set, websites like these would have to find some way to restrict their content. Maybe you'd have to pay to use Facebook and YouTube. Maybe Google would only search a few sites. Whatever would happen, it'd change the face of the Internet.

Now, personally, I don't really think that anything so drastic is going to happen. Since Berlusconi is essentially trying to control Italy's media, Italy seems to be a bit of a special case—I don't think many (or any) countries will follow suit. Maybe I'm shortsighted, but it seems to me that, at least for the forseable future, websites like that are here to stay.

And as for the ruling itself, I honestly think it's absurd. Whenever I see something I find offensive in a search engine, I don't blame the search engine—I blame whoever put it online! And, for goodness sake, if someone writes something rude on Facebook, I don't hold Facebook accountable.

I don't think search engines and sites that host users' content should be any more liable for what you can find on them than a TV set is liable for the programs you can watch on it.

But maybe you disagree. Do you disagree? Agree? Feel free to have your say in that comment box below.


Peace,
Blogdor

“Pay to Play”?: Proposed Performance Rights Act

Despite the popularity of personalized Internet radio and portable music technology, traditional radio stations maintain great audiences. Compliments of advertisers who pay for air time on commercial radio (or listener donations for non-commercial radio), it remains a valuable source of free entertainment and news for the general public.

However, the dynamics of the radio business may change if the proposed Performance Rights Act is put into play. Under the legislation which was proposed in February 2009, radio stations’ budgets would take a hit, in order to broadcast the big hits.

In an April 2009 article in the San Antonio Business Journal, W. Scott Bailey explains that the proposed legislation and the controversy surrounding it stem from the conflicting interests of the music industry and the radio broadcast business.

First and foremost, they disagree on whether or not there should be a performance tax, a measure which is in the interest of the recording industry. If passed, the Performance Rights Act would change copyright laws to require commercial and some non-commercial radio stations to pay a tax to play recorded music. Representatives of the recording industry demand that the legislation be passed; they argue that radio is the only medium not required to pay royalties to artists.

Counter legislation has been drafted, known as the Local Radio Freedom Act; if passed, the bill would exempt local radio stations from paying fees to air recordings. Supporters of the Local Radio Freedom Act say taxes on recorded music would cause the downfall of small-scale radio stations, which largely would not have the revenue to stay on the air if required to pay royalties to artists in addition to the royalties already paid to songwriters.

An underlying issue Bailey highlights in the article is that of government regulation. The question here is whether it should be within the jurisdiction of Congress to create and enforce legislation that would change the way business is conducted between the recording industry and broadcasters.

I can understand the viewpoint of artists, who wish to be fairly compensated for their work. However, I wonder if the benefit of the use of public airwaves should suffice for artists’ compensation. If it were not for radio broadcasts of their songs, musicians would be significantly less visible (or rather, audible) to the general public. Advertisers pay for airtime in order to advertise their products. Since music is marketed as product, why should broadcasters pay to promote the product, when the broadcasts benefit the artist? The more airtime the music gets, the more popular it becomes, and the greater the number of albums or songs the artist will sell, for which they will receive revenue. Also, if the main concern of a musical “artist” is to make money, they should reconsider their motivations for being in the business.

Also, if local radio stations cannot pay to stay on the air because of the new tax, the repercussions might actually be detrimental to artists; if local radio stations cannot stay on the air, then listeners would have no choice but to listen to national radio. This could significantly limit the public’s exposure to diverse content, creating an even more narrow popular culture and a smaller pool of successful artists.

As for the issue of government’s role in the dispute, it comes down to one’s ideology of the role government should have in regulating business in general. As a supporter of a more laissez-faire government, I think in this situation, the negotiations should between the recording industry and broadcasters.

Perhaps my ignorance of the complex business models of the recording and broadcast industries and their relationship to one another is limiting my view, but it seems to me that the demands of the recording industry are motivated by greed. The recording industry and musicians already have a myriad of money-making opportunities. The government should be an advocate for what is in the best interest of the general public. Legislators who support the Performance Rights Act seem to be perpetuating the growth of the recording industry and imposing upon the ability of broadcasters to provide a valuable public service.

Ultimately, if radio stations have to pay to play, broadcasters, the public, and many individual artists will lose the game.

"When you think you see the truth, think again"

"Information and its truthfulness is a weapon being used against us and only the truly ignorant should be fooled by its bad intentions."

Bob Farnham's (of The Daily News) article 'Insights: A lie, told often enough, becomes truth' describes the increasing monopolization of broadcast airways and its detrimental effect on society. Increasingly, consumers of media (i.e. us!) are less and less critical of media information. We see or hear something, and assume it's true. Farnham describes his feelings regarding this increasing ignorance and naivety of the general public, saying,

"...it was then that I began to realize this is not happening just somewhere else in the country, happening to ignorant and educationally denied people. It was right there on my own doorstep, unrelated to ones' position in society or otherwise in any way associated with mere demographics. In fact, it is endemic to our population."

This mindless process of information can be dangerous. What if what we assume to be true actually isn't? How do we make sure we aren't foolishly accepting information? Normally, the answer would be to review multiple sources of information, however, this isn't fool-proof. As the FCC has relaxed ownership regulations, there has been as increase in media monopolization.


What is Media Monopolization??? --> basically, a corporation's ownership of multiple medium (more than one of a certain medium, or different types of medium). As these 'Media Giants' expand their ownership, they increase their potential influence.
Why? Because the public will see or hear their message more often and in more than one place... and repetition makes an impact! When we see or hear something over and over again, especially from different sources, we often take that to mean the message is true, or held by a large consensus.

Media scholars Croteau & Hoynes (authors of Media Society) discuss the evolving FCC regulations regarding monopolization. As developments in media occur, so do changes in regulation. Over the years, the FCC has relaxed the rules regarding ownership limitations. Essentially, corporations can own more media and reach more people.

For further information regarding FCC regulations and monopolization, check out:
'Whoever Owns the Medium Owns the Message' by Harold Feld (Focus on Law Studies).
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/fall04.pdf


So what's the next step???

The next time you watch the news, think about where it's coming from... Who is sending the message? And more importantly why are they sending it? Is there a political or economic agenda behind it?

And, as Farnham concludes his article, "We must all make an effort to broaden our knowledge, study things a little more before deciding the truth of things. Only regret and remorse can result from knee-jerk reactions."


Article Information:
Insights, A lie, told often enough, becomes truth
http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/articles/2010/02/20/opinion/columns/insights/doc4b7f8e78d9e50876128873.txt