In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

. 123 7 C O L L A B O R AT I O N A N D F R E E D O M Enmeshed with a global economy, every bit of “free” information carries its own microslave like a forgotten twin. matteo pasquinelli, animal spirits t h e t e r m s commons-based peer production, social production,Wikinomics ,1 open content, infoanarchism, or as I will simply refer to it here, peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, may not describe exactly the same thing, but they collectively outline a new model of production and sharing in which people—organized in nonhierarchical digital networks—contribute to decentralized projects, often without financial compensation. The labor generated by the participation of these peers sometimes contributes to a common good that is collectively owned by everybody (Wikipedia is a well-known example). But as we saw in the first part of this book, the effort of these peers is increasingly captured and controlled by monopsonies , so that while contributing to the commons is still beneficial, participation in the network produces an inequality that can eventually outweigh that benefit. The paradox is that the dual processuality of networks drives us toward this outcome while giving the appearance of more, not less, freedom. Thus while in general we have grown accustomed to copyright holders going to extreme measures to prevent the unlawful use of their materials in the production of derivative works (e.g., using a song as background music in a homemade video), we are now beginning to see more “creative” approaches that suggest more freedom, but that also represent more opportunities for corporations to make money. This was abundantly clear in the case of the famous “JK Wedding Entrance” YouTube video, which used copyrighted materials illegally. In the past, 124 . C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D F R E E D O M the only option in dealing with work uploaded to a digital network that made use of unauthorized components was to remove it. But in the case of this particular viral video, which shows a wedding procession dancing to the beat of Chris Brown’s song Forever and which was viewed 3.5 million times in the first forty-eight hours after it was released, the record label came up with other options. Thanks to YouTube’s automated content identification tool, which scans a file as it is being uploaded for matches to copyrighted work and notifies the owners of the copyright, Chris Brown’s label (Sony Music Entertainment, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation) could opt to block or disable the video, track or monitor its views, or monetize the work by choosing to insert advertisements.2 Instead of blocking the extremely popular video, they decided to embed an advertisement that allowed viewers to click to purchase the song from iTunes.3 The result was that the song, which had been released a year earlier, enjoyed a revival in popularity and reached top sales spots on iTunes and Amazon. Thus the labor of someone’s wedding party and of those who helped the video go viral translated into real profit for the corporations (Sony, Google, its advertisers, etc.), without them having to do much in return. Some might argue that these are just necessary adjustments to the cost of doing business and living life in the digital age, and that as long as the public gets something out of the deal (entertainment, the ability to easily distribute and share content, fleeting celebrity status, etc.), there is no reason to see in this exchange any sign of exploitation. But what happens when the automated systems like YouTube’s content identi fication tool fail to recognize that the work is being used in a legitimate way (such as applications within the fair use paradigm)? In such cases, the algorithm’s inability to deal with nuance might represent a threat to free speech. Furthermore, it is one thing for corporations to be able to make a quick buck from a home movie gone viral. But it is quite another when our very statements about freedom of speech have to be subsidized by corporations due to the fact that without the monopsony our speech cannot reach an audience. Consider, for example, the Hitler Finds Out meme, a series of YouTube video parodies. The Hitler meme4 is based on a clip from the 2004 German film Der Untergang (Downfall, in...

Share