Dan Gillmor's site

My project focuses on the emergence of new types of "screens" - computer screens, iPod, PDA, cell phone screens, and other new media monitors - that might change how we approach, digest, and consume media every day. The sources I have chosen for this project reflect my desire to compare these new physical screens with older screens such as TV monitors and those in movie theaters. I also chose sources that provided background information on digital and New Media, as well as on theories of spectatorship and screen consumption, since I was not well-versed on the topic before beginning this project.

Sonia Livingstone’s chapter on the development of media literacy charts the development of the consumer from passive viewer of mass media to smart organizer of personal technology. But existing patterns of social interaction may slow down the process of individualized user-developed programming; in other words, you have to consider the plural audience and their significance before determining individual scenarios. People draw on their social and cultural experiences to decipher new (and old) forms of media, which puts direct emphasis on a multi-receiver audience. This also complicates the idea of mass media as the sender to a singular passive audience receiver. With multiple receivers that interact with one another, the exact impact of the media can be hard to determine. Thus, ethnographic audience studies began to examine the use of media goods within exact locations in the home – the Walkman in the kitchen, the TV in the living room, etc. This led researchers to conclude that people are always consumers as well as interpreters of media, as they consume while interacting with one another and creating new contexts and social definitions for these technologies. She goes on to examine past studies of audience behavior in order to sketch out a pattern of media consumption that could perhaps be used to predict future audience behavior with new media. In the end, she’s hesitant to discuss the singular “user,” since collectivity has marked consumption throughout media’s history.

    I found this article interesting and potentially useful because it provided me with a new way of looking at consumers of new media. Most new media theorists consider consumption through the Internet and other digital technologies to be more personal; but the social context does still exist, and Livingstone does a good job in highlighting this in her article. Her hesitancy to discuss individuals, however, seems short-sighted in the face of what’s developed in the years since this was written. Personal computers and Internet interaction is essentially a single-person activity – how can you leave the individual out of that? But, her argument is worth considering if only to prod me to consider the larger social context of digesting and learning new media.

In her 2004 article on emerging digital technologies, Anna Everett discusses the contradiction inherent in the simultaneous ascendancy of both “big” technologies (widescreen TV, IMAX, etc.) and “small” technologies (iPod, cell phones that can do what a computer can do). Within the context of this discrepancy, Everett also discusses the need to formulate new theories on spectatorship and interaction with these new portable small devices. Co-presence and contact with others remain two big ideas posited by theorist Mizuko Ito that Everett supports. Ultimately, however, she argues that new media content remains largely unchanged in terms of social structure; the content mostly caters to popular ideologies that repress fringe theories.

    Though this article presents “bits and pieces” thinking on Everett’s part, it has a fair amount of nice ideas regarding where new media is and where it could go within the next few years. I especially like her argument on contradictions inherent within technological developments – we want both a big screen TV and an iPod for similar purposes (though in arguably different environments). The point is in the simultaneous longing for both, which seems to link up with the desire for multiple and simultaneous interactions with media, whether within the same device or among several devices at once. I do wish she had fleshed out her thoughts on emerging theories of interaction with new media. If she thinks we need to formulate brand new ideas on how to interact with these rising technologies, then what are those theories? And how do they change modern media theory?

 John Andrew Berton, Jr., writes in this article about the application of older film theories to digital cinema. He argues that theories created when cinema first appeared (in the late 1800s-early 1900s) hold some relevance to the technologies currently emerging. The sense of novelty and the display of technicality over creativity can be found in the emergence of both traditional cinema and digital cinema; because the two technologies have found such common ground here, the same theories about the transparency of the technical achievement of the images can be applied to both eras of cinema. The theories he utilizes focus on moving both “new” technologies’ emphases away from technical achievement and towards a more artistic approach and appreciation. Concepts by Melies, Kuleshov, and a few others – which came about a few years after cinema and first arrived, and once its novelty began to wear off – pointed to the need to add artistry and direction to this new technology. Berton wants to apply these concepts to digital cinema, with the reasoning that “history repeats itself”: the emergence of new technologies (at least media ones) tend to follow this similar pattern of awe with the technical nature of the creation that lasts until prodded to turn towards a more content-driven approach.

    Berton’s ideas here hold a lot of relevance to my paper because he somewhat suggests that old media and new media perhaps faced similar beginnings. Since we’re more or less now still in the beginning of the new media phase, we’ve been able to experience firsthand if Berton is correct. I think that there was a time when digital media was so new and cool, that anything it created was met with awe and glee. This has worn off now, but I believe this has transferred to a certain extent to new media technologies like the iPod and the cell phone. Pretty much anything you put on an iPod (at least to the younger generation) is cool not because of what you’re watching, but because you’re using the technology. We’re still starting to figure out what movies and clips work best on a 2” portable screen; it’s likely we won’t discover a good answer for awhile. In the meantime, we’re in the pre-theory phase. Melies and Kuleshov don’t yet apply to the iPod (but do, perhaps arguably, to the computer, which is an interesting separation). Thus, Berton’s overall concept can be applied to my paper in a unique and unexpected way.

In chapter six, Jenkins discusses the role of popular culture in emerging political communities. Jenkins (as is the case throughout Convergence Culture) is focused on how old and new media interact and the dynamics of collaboration and participation. While Jenkins recognizes the scoff-factor when implying the concept of “photoshop for democracy” (user-generated images that often map themes from popular culture onto the political campaign) is any sort of substitute for real political activism, he insists that this kind of user-generated content and mass dispersion is a serious act of citizenry. In fact, using popular culture as a means of engaging voters might just be the most effective way of re-establishing interest in politics as a part of our everyday lives. Jenkins focuses on the 2004 election and recognizes that the next step is to think of “democratic citizenship as a lifestyle.” Furthermore, online political communities seem to be segregating voters, as opposed to encouraging dialogue across ideologies. Although he seems to offer popular culture as a kind of national balm for the ailments of political fragmentation, Jenkins recognizes the inherent limits of its role in (or applicability as a model for) contemporary political communities.

For me, the most useful parts of this argument is the attention he pays to the increasing participation of average Americans (now as monitorial citizens as opposed to informed citizens) in the media landscape and the possibilities for the integration of politics and popular culture. However, he doesn’t seem to offer any real solution for the acutely polarized political landscape.

This article discusses Edwards' efforts to use new media to gain an edge in the 2008 elections. Formally announcing his candidacy via youtube, encouraging voters to text message their support, blogging through his own site www.onecorps.com, Edwards is, according to those quoted in the article, ahead of the online campaign curve. The article interestingly compares Edwards' approach to that of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Warner too utilized the online avenues but, according to Nancy Scola (former Hill staffer Howard Dean campaign volunteer) came across stiff and uneasy online. The implication here is that not only a campaign, but a particular type of personality, must be staged online to be effective. This leads me to wonder whether particular personalities translate across media - can Edwards mobilize his supporters outside of cyberspace? Although this report positively announces that twice as many Americans use the web as their primary source of news about the 2006 elections as they did in 2002, it seems to posit that the real political audience is still reached through TV. Concluding with a reference to Howard Dean, the article settles on the view that the Internet is an increasingly important medium, but still only one piece of the campaign puzzle, leaving us a bit unsure of the implications regarding Edwards' mastery of online tools. Ultimately, when it comes to presidential campaigns, does money still rule - or will the internet increasingly become THE most important piece of a candidate's strategy? In the future, could e-campaigns prove a democratizing force in the uneven playing-field of big-money politics?

    In Chapter 5 of Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig lays out anecdotes and archetypes of all manner of piracy.  The duplication of copyrighted CDs and DVDs in foreign markets is touched upon, but one of the main salient points is his defense of Peer-to-Peer file sharing networks, the groundbreaking networks and servers which made Section 512 absolutely necessary and the rulings on which still protect YouTube from harm.

    One of Lessig’s major talking points is his attribution of the four archetypal uses of P2P networking: stealing music, sampling music before buying, access to abandonware or other copyrighted content that is no longer available by traditional means, and those who search for content that has no copyright or a Creative Commons license and is meant to be shared.

    This is a highly utopian view of both P2P networking and the internet, but at the very least interesting to consider.  Lessig goes on to discuss drops in CD sales and later Jack Valenti’s ridiculous claims about VCRs as “tapeworms,” just waiting to drive the industry down.  If anything, the VCR and file-sharing networks both paved the way for the kind of content generation and also server networks that my final project will use and draw attention to.

    In Chapter 4 of Convergence Culture, MIT Professor Henry Jenkins discusses the grassroots/netroots communities that form around the creation of digital content.  Specifically, the proliferation of DIY digital video creations based on the Star Wars mythos and collaborated on by fans all across the internet.

    20th Century culture, Jenkins argues, built towards a massive uprising of grassroots culture, which began to truly take hold upon the integration of the internet into daily life.

    If there are any flaws in the current fan environment, as he sees it, they are (as he mentions from Lessig) the proliferation of legislation produced to keep the interests of major character-licensing corporations happy, such as mega-giant Disney, which will be quite able to rest upon licenses of its property for decades to come, even if Disney kept producing creations that are barely profitable.

    Convergence culture heralds the digital age, for sure.  Displaying outright giddiness for the subject matter, and extravagant love for the legions of DIY Star Wars buffs and MMORPG fans which proliferate the internet.  These weekend warriors deal with the same kinds of copyright issues that I will, though they re-craft their sacred universes whereas my method is to sample.

The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005 proposes greater care taken by the music industry in letting consumers know the types of digital rights management included on compact discs that they buy.  It mentions increasing consumer dissatisfaction with current DRM practices, as well as general confusion by the mass public about the majority of new innovations in DRM technology, many of which are implemented without consumer’s knowledge.

    It finds most discs to be inadequately labeled with copy-protection warnings, and assures that it is deemed deceptive and unlawful for compact discs to be sold with inaccurate advertising of their digital copyright restrictions.  In this case, certain discs with copy protection must be clearly labeled that they are not, in fact, regular audio compact discs and that they may not be able to be played in some devices capable of playing compact discs.

    This law can only serve as support for the anti-DRM movement, which would find it even easier to warn people about DRM if items such as this were clearly labeled.  This is legislation concerning a number of digital restrictions that already exist in other formats, but are being brought to light more because of a lack of implementation of these technologies at their outset.

    This section of US Copyright law outlines violations of copyright-managed systems, such as bypassing digital rights management and producing a copy of a video in another format.  This makes it illegal for consumers to bypass encryption that restricts content, for instance, to one device for purposes of moving the same content to another.  The law also includes information on the Librarian of Congress’ selection of a class of bypassable works, exemption for educational institutions, and what construes technological violation of copyright encryption.

    Section 1201 also states that no outstanding violations of this section will hinder a defendant’s fair use argument.

    This section of US Copyright law is particularly salient as in order to create my project, I will be bypassing both DVD encryption codes and any DRM embedded into the music used for the piece.

    These are both clear violations of Section 1201.  However, were my project ever to come under copyright scrutiny, I would hope to find protection under this violation being carried out within an academic institution, for purposes of parody, and creating a transformative video which falls neatly under fair use exemption.

    This is also important because for the vast majority of videos on YouTube that contain copyrighted content owned by major corporations, that content has been captured from a source which implemented digital rights management, and thus the uploaders have infringed upon Section 1201.

Thesis: This project explores the increasingly important relation of digital and remix/convergence culture to copyright law and copyright holders, specifically with regards to how video and sound properties are handled in the highly open market of the internet. As a creative submission, I will create a mash-up video parody featuring copyrighted content from Apple Corps., Vivendi Universal, and Buena Vista Pictures. My supporting paper will detail the copyright violations that were necessary for the creation of the work, as well as discussion of whether and why the work should be seen as "fair use" and the ways in which our current cultural paradigm calls for a system within which creations in the same class of works can be made without the violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Arguments:(1) If laws are in place which protect works which are transformative in nature or fall under other fair use or parody guidelines, a system should be established by which consumers can legally transform their media without having to violate the DMCA by bypassing digital rights management encryption. (2) Our culture is in a transitional state, as technology is making the process of parody and other fair uses increasingly democratic. (3) The creative project itself will be a parody of Hollywood tropes and practices, which are becoming increasingly less dominant in the new age of user-generated content. Fittingly, the final project will be posted on media and netroots darling YouTube to make the commentary complete.

    This press release from YouTube briefly details their partnership with Universal Music Group (UMG), subsidiary of Vivendi Universal.  In this groundbreaking strategic partnership, UMG agrees to make music videos whose rights they own viewable on YouTube.  It also allows for YouTube users to utilize music from UMG’s extensive catalogs in their videos.  In turn, YouTube agrees to remove from their site any content owned by UMG which they choose not to make available, and UMG and its artists will be compensated by YouTube for their properties being viewed on the site.

    The document makes mention of the nature of the partnership: that is, a way for UMG to tap into the vast resource internet traffic, a way to assure that YouTube remains devoted to protecting their property, and lastly an embrace of contemporary convergence culture and the new consumer/prosumer drive towards user-generated content.

    This is an interesting deal, especially considering the rampant speculation of YouTube running into problems with UMG just a month before this announcement and how, in the midst of the YouTube deal, UMG sued two other video sharing networks.

    I reference this announcement because it, as well as YouTube’s agreement with Warner Music Group (which preceded this partnership) are primary evidence of a growing trend towards adoption of user-generated content models, and the willingness of media giants to begin the slow process of loosing content restrictions without direct payment by the consumer.

    I reference specifically the Universal Music Group rather than the earlier Warner announcement because segments from my project will include property (video) that is owned by Vivendi Universal.  While this announcement does not in any way justify the posting of my project on YouTube as a legal action, the existence of a link between the two companies is of note, and hopefully a sign that should property agreements expand, the video included in my project will one day be YouTube-licensed (keeping in mind that this is not likely, as the project will contain copyrighted material from additional companies.

"International electronic journal that brings together visionary scholars with cutting-edge designers and technologists to propose a thorough rethinking of the relationship of form to content in academic research, focusing on ways technology shapes, transforms and reconfigures social and cultural relations."

This is a short little article by Janet Murray on the emerging feild of computer based media. She gives mostly just background for the fast paced state of innovation and invention which we're living in right now.

Legal cybertheorist Ernest Miller outlines the effect a broader acceptance of the INDUCE act might have on the creation of derative works based on video games, most specifically on the creation of machinima. The induce act puts not only machinimakers in legal peril, but all the websites and hackers who innovate new machinima techniques and encourage the creation of machinima publicly.

This is a nice posting about the legal implications of machinima, from a blog totally dedicated to covering the latest news in the world of machinima. The author, Paul Marino, outlines three possible aproaches to the issue of copyright machinima makers might use to clearing their work for commercial use.

An article about the changing landscape of video games, as they evolve from product into art.

Lev Manovich on the budding world of digital media. From "The New Media Reader"