Ethically ambiguous videos and stories often generate important conversations around the ethics of participatory media. I have been thinking about the Spreadable media authors’ final plea to vet the information you want to share before spreading it all over the Internet. This seems quite challenging. Recently there are have been some viral tweets and videos, ultimately revealed as hoaxes, that have been spread around the Internet. The man who live tweeted on a plane as he bullied another passenger was a hoax. And though using copyrighted material isn’t new, a recently celebrated video with copyrighted material brought the issue once more into the ethical limelight. The Goldieblox video using the Beastie Boy’s song “Girls” was taken down even though the use of the song would probably stand up in court as fair use. They decided to remove the song after threats from the Beastie Boys. In his will, Adam Yauch said that he didn’t want his music used in a commercial.
Both situations got many people involved in sharing as well as expressing their opinions about social issues, bullying on the one hand and expectations with respect to gender on the other. The uncovering of the hoax or the potential lawsuit against Goldieblox has us going deeper. What are the responsibilities of twitter users to the publics that follow them? What are the responsibilities of companies who use other artists’ works in their ads?
Part of me appreciates people who push the boundaries of ethics because they bring these issues to light. They make the landscape more complicated. It brings out the sleuth in the bloggers and journalists and often reveals some very telling things about social situations. Being able to trust a source is still very important, and vetting stories before you share is ideal, but neither of those is entirely possible. This may be okay though because just as quickly as you can share bad information, that information can be investigated. The two pieces together are a powerful combination. The more interesting story is often the one about the uncovering of the original, questionably ethical story.
Good points, Jarrett! We discussed the credibility and authenticity issues of social media in our Foundations of Strategic Communications class last night. It’s an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, social media makes it easier to spread misinformation. On the other hand, social media makes it easier (and faster) for misinformation to be identified.
Copyright is being impacted in the same way. Again, social media has made copyright infringement much more prolific. But at the same time, social media has the capacity to bring infringement to light much more quickly than in the past.
Jarrett mentioned that the Goldieblox video was taken down even though it’d “probably stand up in court as fair use.” The concept of fair use is being stretched and expanded as audiences appraise, share, curate and appropriate content in today’s digital media environment. The fact that such a term as fair use exists, indicates that at least some form of appropriation is deemed acceptable by society. Finding where that line is between fair use and theft is the real trick.
I’ve been following the Goldiebox/B-Boys thing fairly closely, and from the way I see it, it appears that they took the song down primarily because they realized they could never financially compete with the band in court. So it seems that there is a huge tie between an individual or organization’s ethical moves and their wallets. A few people have posted on here about TMZ and their seemingly “anything goes” policy in regards to ethics. With the huge bankroll they have in their back pocket, they have the ability to be as unethical as they want. In many ways, you could say that this same formula mirrors the current acts of both larger corporations and politicians. Essentially we’ve reached an age where one’s ethics fall second to one’s financial security.
Of course there’s the potential reality that Goldiebox knew what they were doing all along. Being fully aware that Ad-Rock and Mike D are not the type of guys to sue without having an open discussion with the opposition first, the company could have been fully aware that they were never at risk of ever actually being sued. Rather they saw that they could get some traction with the use of the song, as well as gain even more attention by bringing the potential law suit into the public eye. I’d love to see the post Christmas numbers for the company – I suspect they’ll be rather high. Thus the new question arises, if you’re confident that there won’t be a negative back-lash against you, then how unethical is it to act innocent and oblivious?