Call#: Van Pelt Library HM851 .L56 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library HE7631 .S613 1997
This essay is a very concise, accessible introduction to copyright law and the concept of participatory culture. One major flaw that I found with the essay, however, was its demand that new copyright law take “information quality” into account. Who, for example, will become judge of the quality of information, and upon what standards will they make their judgments? This would obviously be a contentious issue, and one that the essay only barely addresses. Also, this essay adopts a fairly utopian conception of digital technologies and the internet, a view that seems to be shared by many contemporary cultural critics. The authors see digitization and the internet as great tools of democracy that will allow for a “participatory culture” unlike any previously known. While these are nice, comfortable theoretical positions to take, that does not necessarily make things so. As regards my own project, I am more interested in how these utopian visions of the “democratization” effect of digital technologies and the internet are coerced and manipulated by larger corporate or commercial interests. For example, this essay discusses how new copyright law needs to provide for “informational autonomy,” but I am interested in how this so called autonomy is ideologically coded and oftentimes highly coercive. In addition, this article relishes in the means of production being made available to all through digitization and the internet, but I want to know how this changes and is exploited by companies like Dorito’s that broadcast user generated content. Will these democratized means of production simply be co-opted by corporate interests, or is there something truly liberating and democratic about these tools? Anyway, overall this is a great essay to read as an introduction to participatory culture and copyright law.
This piece seemed to lament the fact that the Super Bowl advertisers were not able to monopolize traffic to the ads post-game. It sympathizes with the disappointment these giant companies must be feeling over only getting several hundred thousand hits (instead, presumably, of the several million which they no doubt deserved). Then the article goes on to give the companies tips for how to increase traffic next year, and strategies they should employ if they want fully capitalize on the online branding opportunity. This article testifies to the corporate interests of many media outlets, and can only be of interest if read for what the article is doing, not saying.
For my project, though, this piece is very relevant. It shows the way that commercial interests are sometimes subverted, and how in order to “set things right” (i.e. stop subversion of corporate interests) plans are being made to integrate the very thing that was the cause of subversion. Thus we see how the article calls for the companies to “work with” (i.e. subsume) those aggregator sites that so wickedly usurped their web traffic. This, then, is another example of how commercial interests appropriate more independent forms of media distribution.
This is an amazingly concise, prescient, and illuminating essay. It details in a very systematic manner the impact that digitization is likely to have (and, considering this was written in 2004, there predictions all seem to be coming true), and the implications of this impact. One thing it neglects to address, however, is the distribution of DVDs to buy and own. Will this form of distribution fall by the wayside as well, or will things like director commentaries and other bonus features make it a desired commodity? Also, what if you can stream the bonus features – will people still want to own something tangible? Overall, though, this essay is extremely helpful for anyone interested in studying the impact of digitization on the movie studio system both from a consumer and content producer point of view.
As far as my own project is concerned this essay is a useful account of the relationship between commercial studios and individual consumers. Also, its discussion of the impact of digitization on content producers, and the shift of power likely to ensue there, is extremely relevant to my own interest in user generated content. Further, this essay describes the “bargaining power” content producers are likely to gain as access to the means of production increases, and while this is most likely the case, for my purposes it is also necessary to examine how commercial studios will work to limit the bargaining power of producers or co-opt the work of content creators for their own commercial ends (e.g. Dorito’s Super Bowl ads, etc.).
This article is an interesting, albeit dated, piece. It brings up some relevant concerns about what happens when community based sites like YouTube are bought up by giant corporations, and does a mediocre job of reporting the ambivalence surrounding this issue. On the other hand, this article lacks a good deal of information that seems critical for understanding exactly what it means that Google has purchased YouTube. For example, it mentions that YouTube is already selling homepage space to advertisers, and this will only increase under Google’s control, but it does not explain what space it is talking about. Are these advertising videos parading as user generated content, or simply banner ads asking you to join Match.com or other such ubiquitous internet advertisements? This would be good information to know since advertising is such a protean, mutable form. Also, the article mentions that YouTube has already made deals with several other large companies (e.g. CBS, NBC, etc.), but does not explain what these deals entail. Do these companies post fake user generated videos that are truly advertisements, or do they simply get to advertise on YouTube in some other manner? So, while this article does touch upon some interesting issues surrounding both the dot.com universe and marketing, it also fails to provide sufficient information to make it a truly useful document.
This article relates to my own project in its focus on corporate conglomeration and marketing. Similar to how Google subsumes a digital community like YouTube, companies like Dorito’s are appropriating the work of independent, non-professional individuals. While this article expresses some fear about the implications of a company like Google buying YouTube, my project will express a good deal more skepticism about what happens when companies like Dorito’s start soliciting user generated content.
While this appears to be a fairly innocuous article about the future of user generated content and the marketing that companies are putting into attracting consumers to create their own video content, there are many insidious implications in this piece. For one, the article mentions how YouTube will soon be providing “branded channels,” which are essentially user generated video channels that are intended to attract consumers by allowing them to create advertisements for a certain company. Companies see this interactive opportunity as a great way to raise “brand loyalty.” Also, the article mentions the six “sample commercials” that CBS created, which are intended to “be as close to authentic” as possible. Authenticity, then, simply becomes something that can be created and produced by companies like CBS. Finally, the article mentions how CBS will be screening every video submitted “for language and appropriateness of content.” The article assures the reader, though, that CBS will “preserve their [the videos] reality and spontaneity.” There are many troubling things about this form of tacit (sort of) censorship, one being that CBS is now the arbiter of what is and is not “appropriate.” Also, the notion that “reality and spontaneity” need to be screened for is blatantly contradictory, but ultimately very telling about this so-called democratizing force known as user generated content. Read this article with skepticism and ire (i.e. critically), though, and it can be very illuminating. For this reason I think it can be useful for my project that deals with exactly what this article addresses (although approaches it from a much different perspective).
This article discusses the ethics of link baiting, defined here as "great content with an angle that prompts links and social media action." The term itself has a negative connotation due to its connection with bait as a way to trick people, although it has been around too long to change. Included are various quotes from media marketing firms for or against the term and offering alternative terms. Some of these terms include 'viral copyrighting,' 'magnetic content creation,' 'branding wankers,' and 'social media marketing.' The argument here is over what sounds most benign. Although the idea is to use such content for advertising purposes, the dispute is whether the nature of that advertising is to trick people or just expose them to something new. In any case, the article says that the future of advertising on the internet is link baiting, whether or not it goes by that name.
This article offers a generally negative view on the term 'link baiting' while seemingly supporting its underlying purpose. The author Brian Clark is an internet marketer, so it makes sense for him to support it, otherwise he would be in the wrong business. What the article mentions but doesn't explore in great enough detail is that such advertising is the future. Internet memes will be created deliberately through viral marketing and sent out to compete with less self-conscious creations. This has far-reaching implications that are not the subject of the article.
This article is a response to other blog posts decrying the term 'link baiting.' Link baiting refers to the practice of creating content or a series that promotes linking. The result of such linking is popularity, spreading an idea or creation (such as an internet meme), or simply attention. Opponents to link baiting would say that it is an unethical practice because it involves deceiving people or questionable attention-grabbing. However, this article argues, that isn't what link baiting is, and real link baiting offers something to the viewer, whether it is information, entertainment, or food for thought. Furthermore, link baiting is a necessary form of promotion that anyone who wants create an idea for people to consume must do.
This article seems to be a little juvenile in the way it seems to be defending link baiting for the sake of the author's ego (so he says). While there's not much to it, the concept of link baiting is central to spreading a meme. Even for something that on its own merit encourages people to link to it (something that the article does mention), link baiting is perhaps the starting point. Whether that starting point is telling one person who will spread it to enough people or enough people that someone will spread it is a different issue.
tagged Advertising Amateur_Video Copyright_Law Digita Digital Digital_Distribution Digital_Technology Disruptive_Technology Google Hollywood Internet_Culture Marketing Media Movie_Theatres Participatory_Culture User_Generated_Content Video_Rental YouTube by blueher ...on 08-MAR-07