When an entity (individual, group, or even a nation) directly tries to take over another, resistance is inevitable. Anyone who can see that his/her freedom is about to be ripped off will oppose the cause. This is particularly true when the process of taking over, is attempted in a short span of time. The world has seen many examples in the past, which illustrate this; the period of imperialism offers countless stories of oppression and rebellion. However, when the process of gaining control is indirect, i.e. slow and subtle in its operations, it is hard for anyone to be suspicious. When people are made to believe in a cause, they gradually become a part of it. Over a period of time, they can no longer see that they have changed exactly as they were required to, to be taken control over. Well, in crude terms, this is hegemony. This aim of this paper is to discus hegemony in connection with the role of the mass media (as put forth by Gitlin), and then relate the concepts to Google (as explained by Siva Vaidhyanathan).
In clearer terms, hegemony refers to governance by implied means of influence. In other words, the “ruler” dominates his “subjects” by convincing them of his ideas and methods. In his book, Gitlin (7) has discussed the role of the media in influencing the cultural and social ideologies of the society. To aid him in doing so, he has introduced the concept of “frames”, which can be associated with the common understanding of a “frame of reference”. For example, two people sitting on 2 cars, moving parallel in the same direction with the same speeds, will actually see each other as being stationary, while for a person on a stationary frame, will see them both moving. The point is conclusions and interpretations always depend on the frame of reference.
Any society is by itself a frame. It dictates what is acceptable and what is not, with respect to it. So who decides how the frame is designed? Obviously, the person or group that does automatically tops the power table. According to Gitlin, for many decades now, the social media has taken this role of defining frames for the society. People’s sense of morality, ambitions, and even likes are influenced by the media. Yes, many educated people doubt the authenticity of information provided by the media, but seldom understand that it is not the information per se that is being twisted. On the other hand, it is the presentation of the information that makes a world of difference (Gitlin 10, 11).
A rudimentary example, which everyone learns in communication, is the use of negation. Consider the following two statements: “You cannot win the game if you don’t start” and “You can win the game only if you start”. At first glance, they seem identical, but it is well known that they produce difference stimuli in the person it is addressed to. Similarly, the media has the power to structure any information in such a way to get the “right” response from the people. Ironically, those who oppose this system can be heard only if they go through it. In other words, if a protest or social movement needs to get attention, then it needs support from the media, even if its cause is against it. This is a kind of feedback-reinforcement mechanism which ultimately leaves the media with higher power and influence (Gitlin 3).
In a more specific context, Siva Vaidhyanathan has explained how people’s blind faith in Google is an example of hegemonic governance. Everyone is aware of Google’s success story, and its “motto” of “Don’t be Evil” has been publicized only too well. When Google replaced then existing search engines which operated based on bribes, it declared that its own results will be solely based on relevance. Since then, Google may have kept its word; it is probably the most transparent system of information technology. However, it all seems too green, according to Vaidhyanathan (1-4). In the bigger picture, what Google has accomplished is a tremendous faith base from people all over the world. Is this bad?
Well, consider a system that has the power to put together the thoughts of the world. It has access to every action, every conversation, and even every thought that is taking place. Imagine the kind of control and influence it has gathered, implores Vaidhyanathan. The main hegemonic ideologies that have legitimized this power of Google are based in the culture it has created. For instance, the word has become an integral part of the dictionary, and is being used in a variety of context. This has risen to the point where people are comfortable with saying “When in doubt, Google”. This is the kind of trust and vulnerability that Google has managed to earn. People are not only convinced of its authenticity, they have given it the benchmark status to test anything else (Vaidhyanathan 52-55).
Difficulties in Implementing Protection of Intellectual Property
Intellectual property (IP) can be defined as an intangible asset arising from ideas, creativity and original work. It is then only fair that IP is treated as a source of livelihood for the owner (or author perhaps?). Many systems are in place to protect and promote creativity; these are associated with copyrights, patents, trademark, etc. However, since its conception, there have always been debates on IP, and the contexts in which the laws concerning IP can be applied. The aim of this paper is to discuss why implementing IP protection in case of media products is not as straightforward as common sense dictates.
In a world that strictly condemns plagiarism, it is easy to identify with the idea of IP. When a teacher says no plagiarized assignments, no student wants to ask why. This is because the concept of IP strikes common sense and a perception of fairness universally. However, this notion is difficult to carry with IP associated with more than an author with ideas. Most people do not think it is unfair to share files on Bluetooth, or download a torrent file. The development of digital media has made it both easier and harder to incorporate IP laws. It has made it easier in the sense, any violation of IP in the digital front, is easily detectable. However, the means by which IP violation is possible has increased, which makes it harder to be protected.
When hire a person for a particular job that requires creativity, say a lyricist. Now if he/she were to give you a piece without a contract, then you may just use it in your name (violation of IP). However, when there is a contract and he/she has not produced something good enough in your eyes, there is no way to judge the situation. Ultimately, this shows that the intangibility of IP is a major cause of complexity. Stahl has taken the particular case of the music industry and the complexity involved in IP of recording artists. He has explained that the popular paradigm of music artists being free individuals following their passion is a huge misconception. The nature of their contracts with production companies that hire them are far more complicated than meets the eye. For instance, in most cases these contracts dictate that artists cannot record anything of their own, without the permission of the company with which they have signed a contract. This typically means that they are enslaved on a long term basis; their IP is literally sold during this period (Stahl 1-6). The Introduction chapter of Stahl’s book gives an overview of issues resulting from this situation. Most importantly, restriction forced on artists lead to constrained creativity. The organization of work with respect to creative cultural labor seems to have taken a few steps backward, when compared to earlier policies (Stahl 16-18).
The structure of work in the recording industry has two faces, according to Stahl. While one is a dimension that projects into the future, as a probable model for other fields, it is also an example of a backward system of the past, of one which tolerated violent models. This dual nature (pre figuration and atavism) of the industry is a pointer to the nature of capitalist labor (Stahl 10). Stahl goes on to explore some of the experts' takes on the individualization feature of creative cultural work. For instance, critics such as Menger argue that it indirectly narrows access to welfare-state institutions, while supporters like Dueze claim that it signs for new and more radical degrees of freedom and mobility. Banks, on the other hand, takes the midway, to embrace both tendencies (Stahl 15).
Some argue against new IP laws, with the base that there is nothing which is absolutely original. After all, one can always find books with similar plots and music with familiar notes. Of course this does not mean that there has been some copying, but the point is, every idea has an inspiration, if not a primitive predecessor. Today, posting an article on FB or sharing professional photos without giving credits is not unheard of. With the digital media hitting every nook and corner, it is hard to keep track of every file shared.
Further, there is always a way to get around the laws for protecting IP. The simplest of examples that one comes across every day, is plagiarism. Someone who is shrewd enough to understand how plagiarism detection software works can always amend his/her work without getting caught. From that, to a more complex example involving more than one group sharing credit for something, everything goes haywire should even a single person drop out. So as much as protection of IP seems fair, it is many times tougher to be implemented.
