Today I found an interesting article by Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures entertainment back in 2009 entitled Guardrails for the Internet: Preserving Creativity Online. Throughout the article, which appeared in May of that year in the Huffington Post, Lynton describes the detrimental effect the internet has on the entertainment industry and what needs to be done to turn the internet into a structured, right-conscious environment.
Lynton’s first claim in this article is that though the internet has enormous potential for good, as a whole it is harmful to anyone in the business of creativity. He supports this claim with the intriguing story of how a copy of the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen and uploaded to the internet over a month before its release date and how it was illegally downloaded over four million times before the studio could stop it. He then goes on to detail how “the Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.” While he does go on to mention that the internet has great potential to improve society and humanity, it is clear that his opinion of the internet is severely skewed.
Lynton’s second major claim is that in order for the internet to help improve society, it needs some restrictions first. He cites the South Korean broadband network as an example here: though they have one of the most advanced internet networks, it has no restrictions and is crawling with pirates. Lynton explains his point extremely well when he contrasts the development of the internet to Eisenhower’s development of the Interstate Highway System. He says that the internet needs some basic forms of restriction comparable guardrails, speed and weight limits, and police men to ensure its safety and security.
Lynton’s argument is very strong and well supported but it includes a few interesting assumptions. It begins by assuming most internet related things are bad which is not always the case. People do use the internet for a number of productive things such as conducting business or networking with peers and co-workers. Additionally, he seems to assume that most of the people who use the internet have the intention to commit piracy which is not always the case.
Personally, I agree with this argument, but I don’t know how policy makers could go about implementing such changes. It is an interesting concept to think about, but I’m not sure if it is possible.
If Lynton argues that the Internet is harmful to those engaged in the business of creativity and then supports that claim with the X-Men example, what assumptions is he making about his audience's values? Might be be assuming that audience will accept X-Men as a prototypical example of piracy online? Also, what if the audience doesn't see anything wrong with what occurred in the case of the X-Men movie?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement of trying to make policies or laws about piracy, but am not sure if they would work. The Internet is so big and is not controlled by anyone, so making a law would just be hard to enforce.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting and relate-able especially since I remember the X-Men Origins piracy problem. The article does have a negative view with it's assumptions, which you addressed very well and I most definitely agree with the fact that the internet needs some restrictions, but I find fault in the claim that the internet is harmful for people in the business of creativity, as I fully believe the internet improves creativity. I think a better argument on the writers behalf is that the internet can be harmful for people in the business of entertainment, no matter what the medium: movies, art, music, etc.. On the whole I really liked how you critiqued and addressed the article's claims.
ReplyDelete