"Powerlaws, Weblogs and Inequality." Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet - Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. 8 February 2003. .

While the internet does have the potential to give a voice to all who are digitally connected, what purpose does it serve if that voice is never heard or if it is not heard by a robust audience? Shirky speaks about the audience distribution of blogs, with 12% of blogs accounting for 50% of the web trafficing in the webworld. The popular belief that the blog world eliminates hierarchical power structures and systems of inequality is debunked. Shirky's basic argument is "Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality." All blogs can not be equally popular all the time. What's more is that the more popular a blog, the less conversational it becomes as it becomes more difficult to maintain personal relationships with subscribers. Instead of being a conversation forum, it becomes a one-way point of entry into information.Conversational blogs then become the "long tail" of blogs, those blogs with few subscribers that can neatly facilitate interactive experiences between blog subscriber and blogger.

This article begs two questions when discussing citizen journalism (in blog format or website format): 1) should news be conversational #2) does citizen journalism threaten the same discriminatory hierachies that originally catapulted news blogs? In Andrew Keen's book, "Cult of the amateur: how the internet is killing today's culture" he insists that news is not meant to be conversational, objectional reporting is not something to be discussed and weighed in on. Media professionals are meant to act as gatekeepers to newsworthy information, society has entrusted them with this responsibility and such a responsibility is not to be infringed upon by everyone's uinformed and even informed opinions. Centralized power exists to maintain accuracy and order but the internet is based on decentralized power.

Also, if the popularity of news blogs is a result of the mainstream media's abuse of power, do online blogs threaten to recreate these same power structures and consequentially the same abuses? Theories purported by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrell suggest that this is unlikely. Accroding to Drezner and Farrell, the news blogs often do not just serve as news resources but also as part of a checks and balances system for the mainstream. Therefore, their position in the news world is fostered in relation to the mainstream media's abuse of power.

Kramer, Joel. "Lessons I’ve learned after a year running MinnPost." Nieman Journalism Lab. March 19, 2009.

This anecdotal article by Joel Kramer provides insight into some of the challenges to professional online journalism. His brief and readable story of running the online news site, MinnStar, addresses issues such as user commentary, video integration, and start-up costs.

Kramer's most important point for my thesis is his process of screening user commentary with volunteer moderators. As he puts it, "We took plenty of heat from web-savvy readers for this decision. But as readers have watched the quality of comment on respected sites that don’t require real names, many are now grateful for our approach. Recently we published our 7,000th comment. Some sites with looser standards appear to be reconsidering their no-holds-barred policies." This MinnStar policy may or may not be forward thinking, but it is an example of one version of user interaction with news sites. MinnStar doesn't use citizen journalism the way, say, TalkingPointsMemo, does, but according to Kramer, they are exploring possibilities. This demonstrates the lack of an industry standard for harnessing citizen journalists, but emphasizes the growing awareness for policies and methods for intertwining professional quality journalism and usergenerated content.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The State of the News Media: an annual report on american journalism."

This annual report from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports on the state of online jornalism. With substantial charts and research, the overview is an accurate discussion of both where many news organizations stand currently and where they may be (and some are) heading in the furture. The report's thorough treatment of both online content and economic viability address both the demands of the public and the needs of news reporting organizations.

The report provides valuable support for my thesis with its statistic and solid reporting. One particularly valuable section is the survey on "Top Issues in Online Media vs. Media Over All." The chart demonstrates that though the top three news story subjects (election, U.S. economy, Iraq War) are mirrored between online and all media, beyond that the statistics vary. Online, users have more say regarding which issues are covered, it is easy to track exactly which stories are most read, most shared, most commented on; in a print newspaper, information is much more general. This chart exposes how media overall may not be addressing the issues that are actually of most interest to their constituents. And, of interest to my thesis, it supports the idea that as more media incorporates methods for users to share and comment and contribute to media stories, the gap between stories that interest users and ones that do not interest them will widen as sites like Digg bring user approved content back to the top over and over, while stories of no interest to readers die after one day (or hour) on the front page.

Keller, Bill. “Not Dead Yet: The newspaper in the days of digital anarchy.” Lecture delivered at The Guardian in honor of Hugo Young. November, 29 2007. guardian.co.uk

In addition to providing an intellectual analysis of the future of journalism, Bill Keller’s address (appropriately for his audience) begins sentimentally, with anecdotes about Hugh Young, The New York Times, The Guardian and journalism as a profession. But halfway through the address Keller provides the meat of his discussion, which is his educated opinion about the future of newspapers and journalism.

Keller's main argument emphasizes that the differences between the investigative reporting of The New York Times or The Guardian and GoogleNews or Wikipedia's "legions of bloggers." "What is absent from the vast array of new media outlets is," Keller argues, "the great engine of newsgathering – the people who witness events, ferret out information, supply context and explanation." Though Keller rightly points out that opinion and journalism are different, he falsely accuses all internet commentors and 'citizen journalists' of being holed up behind computer screens rather than being active human participants in the world. Certainly there are differences between bloggers and journalists, but what Keller seems to mistake is that journalists must be associated with The Times or The Guardian or The Boston Globe in order to be investigative journalists, or even to "witness events," "ferret out information" or "supply context and explanation."

European Publishers Council. "Hamburg Declaration Regarding Intellectual Property Rights." Berlin: European Publishers Council. June 25, 2009.

This brief statement from the European Publishers Council (EPC) argues for "urgent improvements in the protection of intellectual property on the Internet." Without providing an answer to the problem or even asserting a path toward improvement of the situation, the statement simply places the onus of blame on sites that index their content. Meanwhile, the statement applauds national and internation governments for their efforts to protect international property.

Practically speaking, this statement is fairly ineffectual. Google's response has been essentially, "Go ahead and stop us from indexing your content" – a response that clearly demonstrates how vital news aggregation is to online media. Without offering a solution that will help users find content online while also crediting the correct sources, the EPC doesn't have much weight to throw around. This statement, instead, serves as a thermometer of the rising tension between investigative journalists and news aggregation websites.

Alterman, Eric. "The News Business: Out of Print: The death and life of the American newspaper." The New Yorker. March 31, 2008.

In this article, Alterman discusses the advantages, disadvantages, history, debates, and differing opinions concerning the migration of journalism from print to the internet. He begins by laying the scene, briefly calling on the history of print journalism while discussing current trends and the current bleak state of affairs for print media. The bulk of the article outlines the differences – good and bad – between internet blogging and news aggregation sites and traditional newsroom journalism. Alterman’s main argument centers around the Huffington Post, a political news and gossip website, as an example of the future of journalism. Central to Alterman’s discussion is the role of the reader/consumer of news. Using the contrast between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey's differing ideas of idylic political journalism, Alterman argues that the Internet is the swing from Lippmannesque (boys club, top down media) to Deweyish (public opinion driven, community contribution media) philosophies of journalism. Alterman’s prognosis is gloomy, particularly since he dwells on the fact that many online news sites prefer to aggregate news from print media, heresay and user commentary rather than funding their own investigative journalism.

Alterman’s argument addresses the central theme of my thesis: the difference between traditional journalism and internet-generation journalism. His discussion of 'the mullet strategy' (where websites like The Huffington Post keep a closely edited front page but allow users to fill their subpages with unedited commentary and opinion), is an excellent analysis of how media companies might control but still incorporate public contribtions. Alterman's article also raises an important issue concerning the future of journalism: that The Huffington Post flags stories from other news sources but "shoulders none of the costs" of investigating and writing the story. This issue is indeed central to the discussion, but Alterman's argument falters when he claims that The Huffington Post's hiring of Thomas Edsall, a forty-year veteran of The Washington Post, as its political editor is a "rare" example. For a foward-looking article such as this, Alterman could be expected to see that such hirings might very quickly become industry standard. And as print journalism aficionados move toward 'citizen journalism' sites, their presence will provide credibility and professionalism for the front page, and probably beyond.

Victor Pickard, Josh Stearns & Craig Aaron. "Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy." May 12, 2009. www.freepress.net.

This article thoroughly outlines the state of affairs of journalism and news in America today and offers a comprehensive summary of most of the possible options for moving forward successfully. They examine the struggles of American newspapers today – in dealing with the economic downturn, internet competition and mistrust of the media. The authors address options as typical as media consolidation, the ‘do nothing’ approach and foundation support, and as creative as online micropayment, postal and print subsidies, municipal ownership and prepackaged bankruptcies. They argue that there is not a single ‘right’ answer that will solve the problems facing journalism today, but that a strategic national solution is necessary to protect the ‘lifeblood of democracy,’ journalism.

The authors' arguments are all firmly in favor of journalism, adamantly arguing that the practice is necessary to American democracy and that a natioanl strategy is necessary to preserve the practice. Their argument that investigative journalism is a cut above and better than opinion and commentary on the internet is certainly accurate, but they do not allow that opinion, commentary, and user interaction with news can enhance, support, and alter journalism significantly (and certainly sometimes for the better). It does not allow for journalism to morph with the changing media, for investigative journalism to find new methods of research and discovery just as it is finding new methods of publication. But that aside, the methods discussed are both clear, comprehensive, and realistic. Anyone striving to protect and preserve traditional journalism techniques should certainly read this article for an overview of the options.

Kaufman vs. Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, INC., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrannt County and Muslim American Society of Dallas. No. 2-09-023-CV. January 22, 2009.

This court of appeals decision from Texas rules on the case of Kaufman, the author of an online article asserting that Islamic extremists and terrorists were invading Six Flags during their Muslim Family Day. The court decided in favor of Kaufman, arguing that his article did not refer to any of the groups that filed suit against him, and that a 'reasonable reader' would in no way link the groups and implicate the Islamic groups in question with the groups mentioned by Kaufman as terrorist affiliated. The court asserts that "...an internet author's status as a member of the electronic media should be adjudged by the same principles that courts should use to determine the author's status under more traditional media." It's decision classifies Kaufman as an 'online journalist' and argues that his legal rights are thus equal to those of traditional journalists.

Though the court's decision in favor of Kaufman holds little bearing on my thesis, their ruling affects the validity and status of online journalism because it equates it with print and traditional journalism. They argued that a blogger writing without an editor and without performing investigation and substantiation of their claims would not necessarliy be considered an online journalist and would not necessarily receive the same legal rights as online journalists like Kaufman. The questions is, of course, what makes Kaufman a 'journalist'. The court quoted U.S.C.A 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) (West Supp. 2009), arguing that media includes "any 'person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the way materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'" By this measure, bloggers who discuss news (as opposed to just personal experience and opinion) are certainly included in the realm of online media.

Daniel J. Solove, "I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy."

description here

analysis here

Book on internet privacy.

analysis here

    This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Montgomery, James. "OnMedia Panel: Monetizing Online Video." Www.paulallen.net. 30 Jan. 2008. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://www.paulallen.net/onmedia-panel-monetizing-online-video/>.  

This video talks about Social Media and the struggle it has been to monetize it. According to the article, ComScore rates YouTube as the second largest search engine next to Google. However, the video states, it does not have a solid monetization model. Based on the video, apparently YouTube users don’t care what’s going on around them - they only want to watch a video. These users approach advertisements much like they do on television, by either flipping to another channel or leaving the room until the ad is finished. The article also talks about Twitter. They throw around the idea “What if Twitter would start charging for their usage?” Since Twitter recently announced that Pro accounts are coming this year, but has yet to disclose what they consist of, this seems like an ever more poignant question to answer. Lastly, the video talks about Facebook. It states that “contextual advertising on Facebook is based on the freely submitted data Facebook users provide” and that Facebook’s model is more accurate than a search engine’s technique of ad targeting.

I found source to be particularly interesting as it approaches social media much in the same way I do. I do not exclude YouTube (and also Hulu.com as well) even if it is an entertainment medium as they have social element to them as well. I also felt that this source was interesting as it discussed current trends like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (the latter being a little old in the fast paced world of the internet monetization). I believe that this source will be a foundation text within my research paper and want to delve deeper into each of the monetization models for each of these businesses. The question the article addresses is a important one for every serious company to consider.

SES NY: Will Monetization Models for Social Media Ever Come? Www.webpronews.com. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://videos.webpronews.com/2009/04/03/ses-ny-will-monetization-models-for-social-media-ever-come/>.

    The Newsweek article focuses on Hulu.com and its “formula” for success. Instead of the long commercial breaks that television audiences have become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break. According to studies done by the website, fewer ads make the ones on the site more memorable, allowing the site to charge higher prices for each ad unit. Hulu.com conducted a customer survey with 18,000 respondents and they said that the site had the right amount of ads given the free price of viewing; 17 percent said there was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a 22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users. Additionally, the article states that users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see.  As they collect more and more data, the site personalizes the ad experience for each individual user.
    I felt that this article is a great source to use within my paper and for my presentation as it focuses on one of the main websites my project is on: Hulu.com. The site is a joint-venture between Fox and NBC that brings TV shows from both channels to the web to view for free with an ad supported monetization system. The site also boasts full length films from many distributors including Universal, Fox and Disney. This is a great article as it shows one ad supported system that “works” online. Although the system makes markedly less money that TV on the set, it’s better than the alternative way individuals would gain this content online: Piracy.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.  

This is a nice article by Wired magazine that talks about the future of Twitter.com and one of the monetization systems that it is going to put in place. In the article it states that the company is preparing to create commercial accounts where corporations and other types of businesses could pay a fee to receive an enhanced version of Twitter. The traditional use of the website is a free service that allows people to send short, text message length updates to their network of friends, or as they are called on the site “Followers”. The Wired article also states that Twitter recently closed a round of venture capital financing “pegged at $35 million by media reports, following two earlier funding rounds totaling $20 million.” Although Twitter initially planned to begin seeking revenue streams in 2010, the article mentions that the company recently decided to accelerate the schedule and find ways to monetize its service this year.
    This article is a very good account of one of the methods that one of the emerging giants of social media is doing to monetize its service and make money for its investors. The commercial or premium account model is one that many other websites use to make money. How successful that particular method will work for a site like Twitter is yet to be seen. However, it should be noted that Twitter is extremely unique as it can do real time searches of a mass of individual’s opinions at any given time. Perhaps companies would shell out the cash to be given analytics of their own to study the chatter on twitter.
    Additionally, I also heard of other pay-to-play programs popping up on Twitter from Microsoft and CBD. ExecTweets and MarchTweetness were two ventures that tested out the waters for Twitter being a paid service. It’s too soon to tell the real success of the programs, but I personally believe that may be useful.

Rueters. "Twitter to Offer Business Accounts, at a Price." Wired News. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/03/reuters_us_twitter>. 

   This article is simply a Wikipedia article that talks about Online advertising as a whole. I wanted to include it in my Annotated Bibliography as it is probably one of the best sources to learn about such a new advertising/marketing phenomenon. As we learned in class, Wikipedia is often more accurate than other encyclopedias because of it is online, editable, and under shared license. Some of the subjects the article touches on are the competitive advantage of online advertising over traditional advertising, purchasing variations, E-mail advertising and Affiliate marketing. The article also talks about two types of advertising Hulu.com and Facebook utilize: Contextual advertising and behavioral targeting.
    I felt that this article was actually very informative and helped to broaden my understanding of the online advertising world. The concepts within it are directly applicable to websites that I will be using for case studies in my research paper. The monetization models of YouTube.com, Hulu.com, and Facebook.com are all talked about in depth with sources there as well for additional information if I am so inclined to do so. Basically this article will serve as the framework to help me better understand the principles of advertising online.

"Online Advertising." Wikipedia. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising>.  

    This article is about how Hulu.com is struggling to find advertisers for its On-Demand video streaming website. The article states that the site is facing many problems, including hesitant advertisers, partners that provide entertainment content but will not negotiate prices, and parent companies concerned that the site might cannibalize their own competing media. The article states that Hulu.com is under pressure from content providers, and it has gone back on its pledge to allow anyone to syndicate its content anywhere on the Web. One analyst stated that the site is struggling to find ads for many of its videos. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he says. "I don't think that anyone can say they are impervious to the macroeconomic environment, but we're still hugely optimistic about our ability to monetize the service." Based on numbers from Hulu.com, the site has only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. The rest of the remaining space is filled with public service announcements.
    I thought this article was another good one I could sue as a counterpoint to the success that Hulu.com has found in recent months. Although the site has millions of viewers daily, advertisers are still hesitant in putting their money into the still emerging market of online advertising. It should be noted that YouTube.com also has problems making money and still does not have an efficient advertising based system to monetize itself sufficiently on. Having small commercials play online is a old-fashioned approach to persuading consumers in this new medium, and Hulu.com will live or die by this fact.

Macmillan, Douglas. "Hulu Attracts Crowds but Not Ads - BusinessWeek." BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090330_571175.htm>.  

    This article was extremely interesting as it outlines the reasons why advertising is not working extremely well on the internet. The first reason the author states is that “People don’t trust ads.” The goes on to state that the internet is at it most basic level a much different vehicle for spreading information than other mediums like television or newspapers. He then goes on to say that “People don’t want ads.”  As individuals watch content, the author remarks “when is the time people get up to get a snack, during their show or the commercials (paraphrased).” Lastly, he states that “People don’t need ads.”  He supports his argument by stating that the way people buy online is different than offline. He states that reviews take much more priority when people decide what they are buying  than advertisements online.
     I love this article as it provides a skeptics opinion on the future of online advertising. It supports my probably hypothesis of my research paper: traditional advertising will never survive online. People go online only to find content, so even the ads need to be tailored to their preferences to be able to keep eyeballs. After reading an article like this, it makes me feel that monetization systems like those utilized by Joss Whedon (Dr. Horrible) and Facebook (behavioral targeting) will be the future of the medium. Individuals need to feel that they are not being forced to buy anything, and instead should come to thier own colclusions online. By allowing consumers to feel this way, companies can better thier brand image as well as thier clout in the online sphere.

 Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." TechCrunch. 22 Mar. 2009. 6 Apr. 2009 <www.techcrunch.com>.

          This article talks about Biz Stone, one of the co-founders of twitter, and his hesitance to monetize the service. Other major Web 2.0 companies such as Facebook and YouTube who came before the relatively new company have struggled to find stable streams of revenue as they rushed into building their audience first and then find their source of income later. However, as the article states, these earlier giants have shown that converting eyeballs into money hasn't been easy. The article mentions that Facebook has yet to start generating meaningful amount of profit, and Google has said it has “yet to find the right business model for monetizing YouTube's considerable traffic.” The article infers that Twitter, despite some plans Mr. Stone has, may find itself in the same position. Stone states "How would they respond to us putting ads on the site?" "Are we going to end up pissing them off?"
            A company called Federated Media thought of an idea that creates websites that pull together tweets about a certain topic or by a select group of people. The company is getting corporations to sponsor the sites and will share the ensuing advertising revenue with Twitter. The first site was ExecTweets by Microsoft, a collection of tweets from executives. The second was MarchTweetness, with tweets about the March Madness basketball tournament. I think that this is the best method for monetization for the company and will focus on this during my essay and presentation. Being able to have focused live-streaming information is a new, meaningful way to gain information and I believe people will pay a modest price to be able to do so comfortably.

Gustin, Sam. "Twitter's Business Model? Well, Ummmm..." Wired News. 4 Sept. 2008. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2008/08/portfolio_0804>.

            The article is an interview between Knowledge@Wharton and Joss Whedon, creator of the “Firefly” series and the web-only musical "Dr. Horrible". Dr. Horrible was released on the web in three parts last July and Whedon's plan was to remove the free online versions and sell all three episodes as video downloads through Apple's iTunes Store after a certain amount of time. A week after the series moved to iTunes, it appeared online on Hulu.com. Later, in December, a DVD version became available on Amazon.com. Dr. Horrible utilized various distribution channels and  serves as, according to the article, “something of a case study for marketing independently produced content.” The mini-series cost $200,000 to make from crew and production costs alone and the actors weren’t even paid at first. However, the endeavor ended up making around more than twice the original cost. Whedon stated that he wants what he has done with "Dr. Horrible" to serve as a model for similar original content.
            I am using this source as one of my main texts in my final paper and my presentation. Just as the article states, I want to use “Dr. Horrible” as a case study in the marketing and monetization of independent content online. I find it very interesting that this particular piece of content was able to double its initial investment. The story of Whedon’s online series, and the methods that he used to distribute the content are interesting in the fact that it actually worked. I will definitely use the information I obtained in this lengthy interview to further enrich my paper as it serves as a great example of independent content monetizing itself successfully. Comparing Whedon's work to other ways to monetize entertainment online will be a focus of my presentation and paper.

"Joss Whedon's Plan to Monetize Internet Content (Watch Out, Hollywood) -." Knowledge@Wharton. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2152>.

Lerner, Josh and Jean Triole.  "Some Simple Economics of Open Source."  The Journal of Industrial Economics. Vol. 50, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 197-234.  Blackwell Publishing.

This article from The Journal of Industrial Economics surveys some of the basic economics of the open source software model.  The article begins by noting how open source practices have in fact existed in the realm of software development for several decades, but that the practice of open source software development has grown more concretized and widespread due to the rise of the Internet (to demonstrate this, the article provides a brief history of software development from the 70s to present day).  The article then goes on to examine several case studies involving specific products of open source software development, specifically Apache, Linux, Perl and Sendmail.

Perhaps one of the more unique aspects of the article is the close examination of the motivation for developers to work with open source rather than closed source software.  The authors identify several types of incentives that they hypothesize lure developers to the open source model.  Such incentives include career concern incentive and the ego gratification incentive.  Both of these incentives are categorized in economic terms as what's called a signalling incentive.  The authors list several conditions under which signalling incentives are strengthened, and all of these conditions appear to be present within the open source model.  For example, the ego gratification incentive is in part fulfilled by peer recognition.  The open source model strengthens this incentive because the development process is transparent, meaning all changes to source codes are tracked and tied to specific developers, thus allowing for a high level of peer recognition.

While this article may ultimately pose more questions than it answers, it marks a necessary step towards closer examination of the open source model.  By examining the model from an economic perspective, the article is helping to systematize and deconstruct the motivations and human behaviors that govern the ways in which open source development operates.

Roth, Daniel.  "Open Source Software Made Developers Cool.  Now It Can Make Them Rich." Wired. March 2008.  Conde Nast Publications.

This article from Wired highlights how open source software can be commercially viable, even though the development of it isn't based directly on monetary compensation.  As the article states, 30 open source sotware companies were bought for more than $1 billion in 2007, which is double the number of sales from 2005.  One reason for this commercial interest in open source software is that such software has proven particularly well-developed in the past.  Linux, for instance, is a more stable operating system than Windows, and Mozilla Firefox is a highly popular open source web browser.

The article also points out the main ways open source software manages to make money: "The money comes from selling add-ons, service contracts, and hardware to go with the software."  The examples presented in this article show how open source software can be a commercially viable business endeavor - a fact that goes against the original free software movement from which open source software is derived.  Such evidence supports Google's strategic interest in developing its own open source software for the mobile market with Android and also shows how open source software can prove successful in seemingly incompatible environments (for example, the article describes how open source software has recently been used to set up trading platforms for hedge funds, which are "notoriously insistent on proprietary systems).

Sherman, Cary. "Music on the Internet: A New World is Waiting." Winter 2001. The Brookings Review. 5 April 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20080959>.

    "Music on the Internet: A New World is Waiting" by Cary Sherman discusses the way that the internet and the recording industry are interacting and how they are being changed by each other. Sherman acknowledges that illegal distribution of audio files on the internet is a "real threat" to the industry but also states that the sites lead consumers to believe that the music was free, just as everything else is on the internet. Therefore, while the consumers are the ones participating in the piracy, there is a possibility that they are not aware that their actions are illegal. In order to combat the possibility that people just do not know that they are pirating the music, the courts and the industry have pursued litigation to make it known that licenses are required in order to use copyrighted material on the internet.
    What we can learn from this article by Sherman is that consumers will not pay for something when they can get the same thing for free. Thus, when music is still available for free on the internet, it is difficult to conceive that piracy will be completely eliminated. Additionally, Sherman states that "litigation is not a business strategy" and the best method of combatting piracy would be to come up with a suitable and desirable alternative. Thus, as has been seen in recent years, the proliferation of subscription models and peer-to-peer distribution have allowed consumers more options to access their music. However, although today peer-to-peer file sharing and subscription services may be the best option for downloading and/or purchasing music, this is likely to change quite soon and quite radically as new technologies are developed and new indexes are available for use. As the recording industry continues to evolve alongside technology, we must look out for change on the horizon and keep in mind that adapting to new technologies and industries will allow us to gain the most from our evolving industries.

Griscom, Richard. "Distant Music: Delivering Audio over the Internet." March 2003. Music Library Association. 5 April 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/901040>.

    Richard Griscom's article "Distant Music: Delivering Audio over the Internet" discusses how the internet and personal computer have revolutionized the libraries and their abilities to catalogue and store audio materials. Digital music libraries consist of three departments that Griscom describes: infrastructure, collections and staffing. Within infrastructure there is streaming technology, equipment and archiving abilities to take into account. In collections, librarians must consider copyright law, the organization of the materials and how users will access them. Finally, staffing the coding of audio materials and making them digital is both costly and time consuming.
    However, what Griscom questions is whether or not some of these new technologies and the new digital resources made available in libraries is making a student's life too simple. The author also states that the line between preservation and access have become blurred as a result of using the same programs for preservation of materials as are now used to grant access to the recordings. While the development of these preservation and distribution services for academic audio content currently grant users easy access to materials that would otherwise be difficult to acquire, Griscom fears that despite the developments that have been made in digital audio, the formatting of said content will become obsolete and everything will have to be reformatted. However, in the meantime, the digital music libraries benefit students and academics and hopefully in the future will be available to the public.
    Access to digital audio via libraries will be important in the coming years with regards to education and how academic and rare materials are processed and distributed to users. However, if rare and academic digital audio is recorded, what will happen to music that is currently being released? Is there room in the libraries for modern and contemporary music that is currently being released?

Jones, Steve. "Music and the Internet." April 2000. Popular Music. Cambridge Univeristy Press. 5 April 2009.  < http://www.jstor.org/stable/853669>.

  "Music and the Internet" by Steve Jones discusses how the advancements made in media, specifically the Internet and the recording industry, have altered the way that consumers interact with the product. Jones states that digital music consumption is one of the greatest concerns plaguing the industry at the moment. Additionally, Jones wonders, with so much music available to choose from, how does one decide what to listen to? However, Jones' main point in "Music and the Internet" is the idea of media convergence and how different separate media (i.e. computer and telecommunications technology and the recording industry) are combining forces. Computer technologies are now used to create music and even will use computers to combine new and old music to create something different entirely, take for example the Remix culture and artists such as Girltalk. The overlap between these industries, Jones argues, calls for further study of how music production, consumption and distribution are all interconnected and will only become more so in the future.
    Finally, the author questions the division between us and them. As scholars (we) further study media convergence and how technologies and the recording industry are developing, we must also consider that when studying the audience, consumers, listeners (them), we are also a part of them. The us - them division is not so finite when we, the "scholars" as those analyzing the media and media consumers, are also avid media consumers as well and are inherently tied to the "them." Jones' point here is interesting, is it possible to objectively study this subject when we, ourselves, are part of the group being studied? Additionally, the movement of music is also a key area of study that Jones mentions. The movement of music currently is an interesting area of study because music is now often not held in a physical manner but rather the transfer and copying of music can be simply done with the click of a mouse. However, with issues such as piracy and copyright infringement becoming more and more prevalent in today's music industry, the format of music both makes things easier and more accessible but also more easily infringed upon.

Fitz-Gerald, Jane. "New media effect brings about major changes." Music Business International 7.3 (02 June 1997): 26. EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 8 Apr. 2009 .

In "New media effect brings about major changes," by Jane Fitz-Gerald was written in 1997 and discusses how the Taiwanese music market was developing and adapting to changes in the recording industry. It is interesting to read this article looking back at the recording industry over ten years ago and examine how things were changing then and how they were expected to change in the future. Fitz-Gerald states, in the article, that Taiwan is a good example of the Asian music market in transition, but also states that the rate of change is so rapid that it is difficult for them to predict the market. With the government deregulation of cable channels in 1995, the number of cable television channels increased to over 100, which allowed many channels airing music programming to be broadcast. This opened up many new opportunities for artists to reach the public and also opportunities for the public to discover new music.
    Finally, Fitz-Gerald states that the domestic (Taiwanese) repertoire market share fell form 70% to 60%, indicating an increase in international music. Thus, with the increase of technological development and most likely also with the increase of the availability of the Internet, the music industry was increasingly globalized for both users and labels. In 1995, the pirate sales totaled $30.4 million, which was the equivalent to 13% of the total market. However, it is likely, that if we were to look at today’s figures the percentage of the market that consists of pirated sales would be significantly higher. On the whole, what is interesting about this article is the indication that, although the market was developing much too fast to be accurately predicted, as it is today, all of the indicators pointed to a more global and more technologically developed industry.

BBC News. "Why MP3 piracy is much bigger than Napster." BBC.com 13 February 2001. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1168087.stm>. 

Written in February of 2001, "Why MP3 piracy is much bigger than Napster" discusses the likelihood of shutting down Napster completely following the February 9, 2001 decision that Napster filesharing does infringe copyright. However, shutting down Napster will have little to no effect on how much music is traded and stored via the internet. Additionally, while the courts stated that the Napster service was infringing  copyright the courts decided not to grant the injunction that would shut down the service entirely. The problem with attempting to shut down the entire server is that, while Napster is what allows users to download the music from the internet, Napster itself is simply an index that locates all of the music. The files are, in fact, stored on each of the individual users' computers. Therefore, when downloading a file, a user is not actually downloading from Napster but rather from another user via Napster. Thus, as the article suggests, shutting down Napster would simply force users to use another sort of search engine or index, many of which the article lists as being alternative indexes that could perform the same tasks as Napster. Therefore, the article argues that for Napster to be truly and completely shut down, the courts would have to remove all of the infringing files from the 50 million user computers connected to Napster.
    Thus, what we can see from this article is that despite blatant copyright infringement, the courts are unwilling to issue the injunction because it seems as it if would be a bit of a wild goose chase. If the courts were to issue the injunction to shut down the service, the users would inevitably find another way to share files. Thus, as the recording industry and the way that users consume evolve, improving technology also allows users more and more freedom to in their consumption. They are no longer confined to purchases from the record stores and thus, it becomes increasingly difficult for the courts to regulate and control content when the owners of said content are so widespread and unreachable. As the article stated, in order to truly shut down Napster (and other servers of this kind), the courts would have to go into the personal computers of 50 million people and delete all of the infringing content being shared. On the whole, this seem to be unfeasible and should Napster be shut down, it would only follow that other servers and indexes would pop up shortly following.

Byrne, David. "David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists--and Megastars." Wired. 18 December 2007. <http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne>.

David Byrne's article "Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists - and Megastars" published in December of 2007 discusses the way that the interaction between artists and the labels have changed over time. Byrne argues that the recording industry today is not actually a business about music but a business about business and sales. He states, "at some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases..." The article discusses the progression of the commodification of music and the proliferation of different possible models for distribution of music. Byrne, a former member of The Talking Heads, lists his six possible models for music distribution: equity, standard distribution, license, profit-sharing, manufacturing and distribution, and self-distribution. These range from least artist control over product (equity) to self-distribution, which allows the artist complete control over the product. On the whole, the author advises artists to hold onto the publishing rights to their music as much possible.
    This article is relevant to music and new media now because along with the advent of new technology, artists have many more options and avenues to reach consumers. Byrne argues that the traditional label structure is too large and only represent the economic aspect of the industry and no longer foster the artistic interests of the musicians. Servers such as Myspace and new digital technology are transforming the recording industry into something entirely different and are allowing artists more freedom in how they manufacture and market their music as well as how it is released to the consumers. Just as the music industry has changed much over the past century, it is only bound to change more in the future as more digital technologies develop and become available to consumers and the industry.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->     This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

    The blog, Midas Oracle, looks at prediction markets in the news and issues surrounding their value and usage and contains many current articles about different markets and their social utility.  The author examines the utility of prediction markets, and determines that it is in fact their ability to synthesize facts, expectations and beliefs gathered by a diverse audience of users much faster than traditional media outlets can that makes them a valuable means of forecasting events.  It is arguably this efficiency that should be focused on by developers and those looking to harness the collective intelligence of prediction markets in order to develop new ways of making prediction markets more effective.

    Putting Suroweicki's qualifications of a diverse, decentralized and independant crowd in the context of their ability to amass this information most efficienctly is a useful method of understanding their significance.  It seems to make sense why these characteristics would be useful for prediction markets.  Another interesting aspect of this blog is that it does not hold the crowds on a pedestal for their supreme intelligence, but rather values their speed and popularity as their defining characteristic.  This follows more in the line of conventional wisdom, and is an important concept when examining the role of these markets in the foreseeable future.

    This article examines the Hollywood Stock Exchange and gives basic information about its usage and what happens with the collected data.  In the case of HSX, the value lies not in the prediction of the future, but rather the accumulation of the preferences (tied to the demograpic information) of the average users.  That data is then sold to production companies who can adjust their upcoming films, and determine more intelligent money allocation based on their consumers.  This model works two ways, predicting the value of actors, producers and movies and also informing the film industry about what the average consumer desires. 

    While the Hollywood Stock Exchange does not release their demographic information on their website, they operate an entire research end that enables studios to selectively purchase certain types of data collected.  In this case it is important for the average person to join in on the trading, not only to get data on the target audience but also to give reason to attract experts, who see opportunity to do well.  These experts' opinions are important and might not be harnessed in other more traditional methods.

James Surowiecki outlines through cultural examples the basic idea of collective intelligence and that time after time it is shown that the group estimate to a given problem is more accurate than most of all of the individual guesses. He then lays out a key set of characteristics for what makes a wise crowd. They are: diversity of opinion, meaning that users come from many different intellectual backgrounds; independence, that they do not rely heavily on the opinions of others; decentralized, meaning people can draw upon local knowledge, and a means for aggregating their opinions. He states that while the average is often mediocre in most cases, in decision making it is most often the best. Though he also states that collective intelligence is not always perfect, citing certain examples where experts certainly know better than the crowd.

Surowiecki lays out the particular parameters I will esxamine as a starting point in my research project in looking at the particular incentives of marketing techniques used to maintain a flourishing prediction market. The implications for data gathered from prediction markets will examine the future role of experts, building off of Surowiecki's comments. In addition this work will mark the branching off point from where I examine other definitions of "wise crowds" and how important his characteristics actually are.

    Information systems like the internet provide a medium for enhancement of the group dynamics that have been present in complex and lossly organized groups for hundreds of years.  Over time the average "social group" size has increased dramatically, allowing for a higher level of diversity of opinion.  The internet allows for the integration of knowledge in many different forms, has remarkable capacity for storage and can transmit data with low data loss, if any.  These qualities improve upon the merely human knowledge exchange and aggregation systems formed organically through social groups.  This article also examines the possible damaging factors to large knowledge systems, citing that many individual "wrong" choices would not greatly affect the outcome, but a randomly selected "leader" would be incredibly detrimental to the collective result.

    This article examines the very relevant characteristics of the internet in enabling collective intelligence to grow and thrive.  This is important in putting the study as well as prediction markets themselves in context, since they do not arise simply on the internet, but are created when certain conditions are optimal.  In addition, this article looks at the important inhibiting factors to an accurate concensus like the presence of a leader and potential for the bandwagon problem.

Dubner, Stephen J. "What's the Future of the Music Industry? A Freakonomics Quorum." Freakonomics Blog, New York Times. 20 September 2007. <http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/whats-the-future-of-the-music-industry-a-freakonomics-quorum/>

This 2007 New York Times blog compiles the opinions of five different experts on the music industry. They are asked to reflect on the "future" of music in the context of the digital revolution. One expert is the author of the previously-referenced "Effects of File-Sharing on Record Sales," three are major music executives, and another is the founder of Engadget and a free, online-only music label. Essentially, they all offer disparate perspectives regarding the way in whcih music consumption is changing.

In a paper meant to argue a particular position about the success of new online music distribution methods, any novice or statistical opinion must be tempered by that of the experts. This New York Times column is a unique and valuable compilation of 5 different expert opinions. Largely, everyone seems to agree that the music industry is undergoing substantial change and that the labels must be open to reinvention. One suggestion undrestood by the labels in 2007, it seems, are advertising-supported models. Most interestingly, in their opinions these experts define exactly why the internet has changed the demand for music so thoroughly: it has affected scarcity. This is a crucial basis of understanding for any marketing or revenue model that follows.

ComScore. “Press Release: For Radiohead Fans, Does “Free” + “Download” = “Freeload”?” 5 November 2007.

This press release details a study of the online sales of Radiohead's "In Rainbows," an album the band released via a pay-what-you-want download model. The statistics obtained demonstrate clearly the presence of a "freeloader market," in which 60-62% of people will download an album for free when confronted with a pay-what-you-want option. The article offers a few different perspectives. Some experts are impressed that 40% of consumers are willing to pay "real money" for something they could get for free. Others question whether this model could be viable for less-established artists. Edward Hunter, a comScore analyst, states that this unique effort is important in that it eliminated a loss of profits due to illegal downloading.

Though these statistics are important, they are more interesting when confronted with data from (countless) other sources, which report that Radiohead's experiment was a likely success. Many different sources report that the profits made by Radiohead on In Rainbows were comparable to what they would have made under normal record-company distribution. Though those opinions and statistics can be found readily, the data regarding freeloaders is more unique to this article, which seems to expose the downside of pay-what-you-want models.

Anderson, Nate. "Free Nine Inch Nails album tops 2008 Amazon MP3 Sales Charts." Ars Technica. 6 January 2009.

This article summarizes experiemental distribution of Nine Inch Nails's new album and the effects the new online distribution model had on sales. Nine Inch Nails released the album Ghosts I-IV under a Creative Commons license, which allows legal free sharing and remixing. Despite this, the album garnered huge profits; both via digital download on Amazon.com, and perhaps more significantly in limited edition "extras" sets. The Ars Techinca article goes on to pose two questions to Fred Beneson of Creative Commons: Why would fans buy the album when it could be had for free, and would Creative Commons Lisencing work for record labels? Bereson addresses these questions speculatively, with optimism as well as some analysis of the factors necessary for the success achieved by NIN.

This is a major success story for Creative Commons, and an example of a profit-making model that still offers free download and distribution of music. The profits of Ghosts I-IV speak to the appeal for a product that is not available for free download (extras, convenience, or the authenticity of supporting an artist directly). Understanding the presence of this demand is necessary for understanding the way people want to consume music in the digital age. Profits can be achieved via different music products and services.

Barboza, David. "Google and Music Labels bet on Downloads in China." The New York Times. 5 April 2009.

This article addresses one of the most recent experiments in new profit models based on digital music: Google's free music search engine in China. Very recently, several of the biggest international record labels partnered with Google and a Chinese company (top100.com) to offer a free music-download service. Because online piracy of music is particularly rampant in China, the success of this model could have lasting implications on policies in the US. The New York Times article offers both critical and supportive opinions on the initiative. Notably, Google will have to struggle to contain the music-downloading to China, employing "legal and technical hurdles."

The partnership of Google with major international music labels represents a new way for record companies to remain profitable without trying to stop free music downloads. This unlimited-download service is supported not through subscription, but by advertisements. Although it is difficult to anticipate the success of such a model, the adoption of this idea certainly reflects a major change in the way that the entertainment industry is approaching its consumers. The willingness of labels (even on this controlled scale) to abandon control over music distribution to this degree is a symptom of their desperation, certainly. However, it is likely also a necessary move towards a new kind of support for music development.

Accenture Media and Entertainment. "The Challenge of Change: Perspectives on the future for Content Providers." Accenture Global Content Study 2008. Accenture: 2008.

This report is the result of a market research firm initiative, in which they surveyed 100 entertainment executives to determine their opinions on the future of revenue models based on digital media. The results of the survey show that the ad-based model is the most popular model for the surveyed executives, as opposed to subscription or iTunes-like services. Though the focus in the report seems to be on forms of entertainment other than music media, it provides a successful context for profit-garnering models in digital entertainment. It also reflects the point of view of those that will ultimately be responsible for shaping the way that media is transferred to the consumer (legally) online.

This report represents yet another perspective on successful provision of internet content (without greater legislation). The importance of advertising on maintaining free content on the internet cannot be understated -- many argue that advertising-based models represent the future of music revenue. Ad-based music models are already being put into place: the music-search engine developed by Google in China, for example. The Accenture report is important, therefore, because it provides data and quotes from industry experts that address the longstanding relationship between advertising and entertainment.

Anderson, Chris. “The Long Tail.” Wired Magazine Issue 12.10. October 2004. < http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html>

Chris Anderson’s article “The Long Tail” (later expanded into a book) introduces the idea of the growing importance of the Long Tail in the way that media is marketed on the internet. It posits that the internet has allowed for a new profitability of the non-“hit” 80% of entertainment product (books, music, DVDs). Ultimately, he argues that the incorporation of the Long Tail into business and marketing models has been advantageous for the entertainment industry, the consumer, and for “culture” as a whole.

The concept of the rising profitability of the Long Tail is a major one in any argument regarding new music marketing on the internet. The Long Tail model is a fundamental example of the way that online consumption of media has changed (and, it is argued, improved) the music industry as a whole. Since 2004, when Anderson first coined his Long Tail idea, we have seen the effects of Amazon, Netflix, and iTunes’s feedback mechanisms for identifying taste and suggesting a focus on less-popular items. Clearly, the exploitation of the Long Tail by these distributors proves the profitability of internet-specific marketing models. Further, I believe that the growth of the Long Tail model has been a taste-making mechanism in the generations that have embraced these internet vendors—not only has the use of the Long Tail shaped marketing initiatives, but it has changed the way the consumer defines their own taste.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). “IFPI Digital Music Report 2009.” January 2009. <http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf>

This report is a production of the IFPI, a worldwide group for the representation of the recording industry. It offers extremely recent data from 2008 which remarks on the success of different world-wide profit-garnering music revenue models; for example, it reports how much of the international market share iTunes currently holds. It also disucsses the way in which the music industry has already changed in its revenue and marketing structure, and gives statistical evidence regarding the results. The report, dated January 2009, details the way the record industry has seen itself change, and the ways it is looking to maintain its authority.

Clearly, this report is not from an unbiased source like the independently-researched “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales.” However, the data is still relevant, and more recent than academic publications. This industry-side discussion demonstrates a contrast to the anti-industry marketing and revenue models that are to be addressed elsewhere. Essentially, it gives an opposing perspective and interesting statistics regarding the effects of file-sharing on international music markests. Finally, it provides some key insights into the ways that the record industry is urgently seeking to maintain control, the ways that intellectual property is viewed by international corporations, and the ways in which they measure success.

Oberholzer-Gee, Felx; Strumpf, Koleman. “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis.” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 115, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 1-42. < www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf>

This journal article is a statistical, quantitative analysis of the effects of file sharing on record sales in the United States. It provides a necessary statistical context against which new music initiatives can be explained in terms of new revenue and marketing model development as a result of the digital-music renaissance. It provides data up to 2007 that measures record-sales (online and in stores) as well as expert estimates of file-sharing usage. Additionally, its authors conclude that file-sharing is not primarily responsible for a decline in record sales, a conclusion that has been used in several policy cases regarding the legality of file-sharing.

This article serves several key purposes. First, it provides an empirical background to support the necessary claim that the music industry is changing as a result of online sharing and the proliferation of digital media. Second, its analysis undermines certain assumptions many RIAA proponents maintain regarding the effect of file-sharing on record sales; for example, it is argued that the availability of the “single” online contributes more to the change in revenue structure than P2P networks. Third, it reports digital-music statistics that are important in any argument regarding the business of music on the internet.

OpenNet Initiative. Internet Filtering in Iran in 2004-2005: A Country Study. 9 Apr. 2009.

This repotr by the OpenNet Initiative is a thorough analysis of the internet filtering technology used in Iran. The study begins with a detailed description of the regulation and censorship restrictions in place both in print media and online. Then, the ONI attempts to study the Iranian filtering system. Through accessing remote computers behind Iran's firewalls, the ONI tested a list of websites to see whether they would be accessible or not. They try this technique on multiple computers and do it several different times in order to get an understanding of how consistently a certain website is blocked. Through analyzing the content of HTTP headers and web site loading time, researchers separated sites into four categories: unfiltered, possibly filtered through redirection, possibly filtered with a possible network connection error, and definitively filtered. In Iran, researchers concentrated on two ISPs: the private ParsOnline and the state-owned TCI. Results showed that only one-third of websites tested were blocked. Sites with pornographic material or that provided access to circumvention tools was filtered more successfully. Over the testing period of a year, filtering increased, particularly the filtering of blogs.

This study is perhaps the only empirical study that tests the regulation mechanism in Iran. By providing details of the filtering software and giving empirical data, readers get a clearer picture of the breadth of content that the Iranian government seeks to block. The filtering in Iran appears to be at a sophisticated level, moving beyond pornographic content that violates Islamic law and focusing on more personal forms of expression, such as blogs. One interesting result, however, is that non-Iran specific sites or non-Farsi content is harder for the filtering software to block. Still, the software in place results in an "overbreadth" of sites being blocked, censoring more forms of expression than needed/

Carles. "Animal Collective is a Band Created By/For/On the Internet." Hipster Runoff. 13 January 2009. <http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/animal-collective-is-a-band-created-byforon-the-internet.html>

In this blog post, satirical/ironic blogger "Carles" produces one of the most-discussed theses on Internet music of 2009. He posits that the band Animal Collective's most recent release, Merriweather Post Pavillion, was successful specifically because it catered to the tastes of it's internet-savvy audience. In doing so, Animal Collective has thereby defined what it means to be an "internet band": how to walk the fine line between mainstream and authentic taste; how to produce internet hype without immediate backlash; how to produce revenue despite a full-album leak. Hipster Runoff also references the importance of online-criticism mediums like Pitchfork and meme-production in determining the success and respectability of a band. Ultimately, he concludes that the success of Animal Collective is not only the result of but also a reflection upon the band's internet following: a "symbiotic relationship" uniquely achieved.

This Hipster Runoff post is important in the way that it was reflected on throughout the blogging community; it was taken with unusual sincerity, and both praised and criticized. The story of Animal Collective's new rise to prominence (Merriweather Post Pavillion is their fifth album) tells the story of the new internet marketing machine. This CD epitomizes a particular kind of marketing and revenue model on the internet. The Hipster Runoff post takes this a step further, as it analyzes how and why the internet-branding of Animal Collective was successful, and the way the branding of Animal Collective simultaneously contributes to a branding of self. Animal Collective and the Hipster Runoff analysis is an example of the way that online music critics, independent bloggers, and their music-savvy audience are responding to a particular kind of online music marketing.

Reporters Without Borders. Reporters sans frontières - Internet - Iran. 2004. 8 Apr. 2009.

This report by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres, or RSF) is part of a series of studies that examines obstacles to the flow of information over the internet. RSF's main concern with blogs is that they provide a more-objective source of news than the traditional Iranian media and that they allow for the organization of anti-government protests and demonstration. The RSF report also details the history of Internet regulation in the country, naming the bureaus responsible for controlling access and content on the internet. RSF reports cases of both reformists and conservative hard-liners using government in order to control the Internet. It then details the stories of three cyber-dissidents who have suffered harrassment at the hands of Iranian government officials.

The RSF report provides great background on internet regulation. While efforts at regulation were intensified after the report was published, RSF's concerns remain valid and many of the government policies remain the same. The report also situates the Iranian case in a larger context of internet censorship, which helps by providing opportunities for comparison and contrast. Furthermore, the report demonstrates that both factions of the Iranian government are taking steps to control the spread of information free from government control, perhaps presenting an argument to the idea that this new technology will inherently lead to democratization.

Tehrani, Hamid. "Iran's Revolutionary Guards Take on the Internet." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 8 Jan. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

Tehrani's post addresses an announcement made at the end of 2008 by a branch of the Iranian army that it plans to launch 10,000 blogs for military forces. The ideologically-motivated group sees blogs as a threat to the Islamic Republic and are concerned that it might lead to a non-violent revolution. Tehrani claims that a chief cause of the Revolutionary Guards' action is fears over the state's lack of control over the internet; the Iranian government controls all other media. In 2008, detailed information about corruption was posted and spread on blogs. As Iranian citizens spread the word, public outcry grew, causing many high-ranked officials to resign. Tehrani notes that this government accountability is much more prevalent now that Iranian citizens themselves have the ability to publish information. He remains skeptical about the Revolutionary Guards' efforts, stating that Iranian conservative media has never been able to attract readers--despite the lack of competition from other sources.

Tehrani's post mentions an intriguing policy decision that demonstrates changing attitudes in Iranian government. This "if you can't beat them, join them" belief is a shift from a policy of attempted censorship and filtering that has been largely ineffective. The post is also one of the few sources that mentions the existence of conservative blogs. Interestingly, mullahs and conservative politicians have also been turning to blogs to express their views, and many are well-read. Tehrani's critique of the government policy, however, is that these blogs will essentially be "mass-produced". The government is likely to keep a strict eye on them in order to ensure they reflect official policies. This regulation is counterintuitive to the spontaneous, often-opinionated dialogue that makes blogs so popular in Iran, which is likely to render them ineffective as propaganda tools.

Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." [Weblog Entry.] TechCrunch. 22 Mar 2009. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/). 8 Apr 2009.

    Professor Clemons holds a strong viewpoint: “the expected drop in internet advertising revenues this year was neither unpredictable nor unpredicted, nor was it caused solely by the general recession and the decline in retail sales.”  He places a lot of the blame of the advertising decline on the mere fact that consumers know how to get what they want. The three main reasons he provides for advertising’s imminent failure are: “1. Consumers do not trust advertising, 2. Consumers do not want to view advertising, 3. Consumers do not need advertising.” He proceeds to unravel these statements, arguing that “messages are observed by potential customers who are performing other activities.” Presently, there are only a “few examples of website symbiosis, where community content on one site adds considerable value for another.”
    The argument made by Professor Clemons further complicates my argument. He basically says outright that advertising on the internet is destined for failure. Throughout his blog, he constantly refers to the messages as the problem and how they are “not trusted, not wanted, and not needed.” This does provide a little window of hope for my argument; if banner advertisements could be trusted, then maybe they might have an impact on internet behavior. One way of doing this might be to restrict the vast amounts that are allowed on a particular page. Yes, frequency of a particular advertisement is helpful, but if people are bombarded with various advertisements, they will tend to tune them all out, even the ones that might in fact appeal to them. In addition to decreasing the number of banner advertisements, I think it would be extremely effective to have certain banner advertisements for certain sites. Therefore, you bypass the step of intriguing the consumer, for they are already on that particular website because they have an interest in its content. Therefore, it is up to the content of the banner advertisement to further intrigue the consumer.

Alavi, Nasrin. We Are Iran. Brooklyn: Soft Skull, 2005.

Alavi's book is an examination of Iranian political and social history that integrates excerpts from blogs into the historical narrative. The book begins by discussing the particular role of bloggers in society. Alavi examines the rise of blogs and the subsequent government censorship. Alavi then explains the role of history in promoting Iran's blog culture. She points to the closing of reformist newspapers and state control of the media. She also mentions the demographic shift taking place in Iran that has resulted in a large population under 30 who is eager for change. Alavi's entire book points to a conflict between globalization and tradition; she sees a Western cultural onslaught brought by the technological revolution (which introduced satellite dishes and PCs to Iran) in opposition to the Islamic revolutionary values promoted by the state. Throughout the chapters of her book, in which Alavi explores the perspectives of Iranian youth, Alavi is constantly discussing events in terms of their effects on blogging culture in Iran. She then connects bloggers' reactions and comments to actions taken by the state.

By connecting the nation's history with reactions or reflections from its people, Alavi demonstrates the power of Iranian blogs to critique the dominant social culture. Furthermore, Alavi's choice to integrate excerpts shows the use of blogs as a self-expression tool. Alavi also frequently demonstrates the link between blog posts and social movements, a connection similar to that of Chinese internet users. Alavi's selection of excerpts also demonstrates the wide variety of topics approached by Iranian bloggers and the styles they use to portray their situations.

Van Buren, Chris. "Morozov: The Internet No Democratic Cure." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 3 Apr. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

In a post on The Berkman Center's Internet & Democracy Blog, Van Buren responds to Evgeny Morozov's piece in the Boston Review on cyber-utopianism. He agrees with Morozov's assessment that intellectuals tend to overestimate the Internet's power to democratize, pointing to the fact that access to the Internet has not removed human rights abusers from power. Van Buren is concerned that online dissidence has led to a wave of heavier repression and authoritarianism that opposes the democratization many intellectuals seek to promote. Yet while believing that intellectuals' idea of technological determinism is naive, he also sees a possiblity for the web’s influence on democratic reform to exist, but in a subtle and slow manner. In order to defend this point, Van Buren examines the Iranian case. The sheer number and variety of Iranian blogs mean that total censorship is impossible, and this promotes the free speech necessary for democratic change. By doing so, Van Buren argues, freer speech becomes more of a norm, and this slowly will defeat censorship. Van Buren also notes that the blogosphere gives a voice to moderates who would otherwise be excluded from the traditional media's emphasis on polarized viewpoints.

Van Buren examines the implicit effects of the existence of so many Iranian blogs. While there is a dispute as to whether or not all Iranian bloggers seek to effect political change, the fact remains that the forum to discuss virtually anything remains open and free to access. Van Buren is suggesting that a social norm will be transferred from the Internet to the real world. At the same time, however, Van Buren ignores the recent efforts of the Iranian government to curb blogging through legal consequences such as imprisonment.

Lovink, Geert. Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Lovink's book is primarily concerned with the rise of blogs and Web 2.0. He argues that blogs in the United States are bringing about the decay of traditional media and sees them as being largely driven by concerns about social ranking. In essence, he sees bloggers as "creative nihilists" who are "good for nothing." Lovink spends a portion of his book discussing Iran, a country where blogging's growth means the activity is no longer marginal. He notes that anonymity is essential for this growth. He then discuss the notion that blogging facilitates indigenization by creating an environment which gives cyberspace the same feel as the real world. In essence, Lovink believes that because blogs are so prevalent, people simply transfer their activities online. By doing this in the name of preserving their freedom, Lovink fears that Iranians are isolating themselves from the global community. He notes that many of these bloggers simply seek to expand their social networks and gain a special authority that they could not otherwise gain in the real world. Lovink also points out that anonymous blogging in Iran may not be as safe as Iranian bloggers believe. While ISPs are not centralized as in other countries (specifically China), it is hardly difficult for the authorities to track users based on their IP addresses (recent arrests of bloggers indicates this fact). Because of this, anonymous bloggers in Iran are really deluding themselves into complacency.

I chose to include Lovink's study in this book because of its counterpoint to traditional thinking about the Iranian blogosphere. Before addressing the issue of "nihilist blogging", it is important to mention that Lovink's perspective on anonymous blogging is valid. With ISPs submitting to state control, anonymous blogging would seem to largely be a social-norm. Yet Lovink doesn't seem too well-versed in the content of Iranian blogs. Many of the sentiments expressed on Iranian blogs would be unacceptable in Iranian public spaces. The fact that discussions of love (or other topics that would be considered immoral) can only be had on the internet seems to indicate that it is more than an extension of a person's physical world.

Jensen, Peder Are Nøstvold. "Blogging Iran: A Case Study of Iranian English-Language Weblogs." MA thesis. U of Oslo, 2004. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.duo.uio.no/sok/>.

Jensen's thesis challenges the notion that the internet exists in a "political or cultural vacuum". While he acknowledges that it is difficult to control information on the internet, he does point out a number of successful cases in which governments have succesfully controlled access to the internet in order to intimidate users and prevent them from seeking dissident viewpoints. Jensen also notes that since its introduction into authoritarian societies, the internet has yet to effect any change in authoritarian government. The bulk of Jensen's paper is a case study of Iranian English-language blogs. In his study, Jensen discovered that the censorship of these blogs has been increasing and that the majority of blogs seem to explicitly reference censorship and filtering. Additionally, he notes that the majority of bloggers inside Iran use anonymous identities. In spite of the recent crackdown on bloggers, Jensen reports that Iranians still have the most trust in the Internet.

Jensen's article provides a helpful set of excerpts and analysis that demonstrate the concerns of Iranian bloggers and their efforts to effect social and political change. These excerpts show that despite the main focus of these bloggers (whether it be art, sports, politics, or their personal lives), the concerns of censorship and political repression are ubiquitous. By providing these excerpts, Jensen thus explains the government's perceived need for filtering and censorship.

Drezner, Daniel W, and Henry Farrell. "Web of Influence." Foreign Policy 145 (2004): 32-40.

Drezner and Farrell's article examines the ability of bloggers to shape media coverage and global policy. In a free society, Drezner and Farrell explain, journalists now look to weblogs to determine which topics in global affairs are salient. Because blogs have the ability to provide a real-time response to breaking news and offer unique perspectives of common people (rather than an elite class),  they provide a reliable source of public opinion for journalists and policy-makers alike. This gives blogs in most countries a strong agenda-setting ability. In more restricted societies, where the news media is subjected to state control or censorship, blogs often become an alternative source of news and opinion. The authors point out that bloggers are limited by restricted access, legal punishment, filtering, and lack of technological infrastructure. In this case, bloggers in these countries (or members of the country's diaspora) try to influence foreign media or foreign NGOs in order to indirectly improve the situation within their own country. In the Iranian case, Iranian bloggers have joined together with prominent English-language bloggers in order to attract media coverage and pressure the government to release an imprisoned blogger. Yet the authors also note that most bloggers mnust rely on traditional media for sources of information, which, combined with the threat of imprisonment, hinders their ability to accurately portray their situation.

Drezner and Farrell provide an intriguing model to explain the real-world influence of blogs. What they do not address, however, is the importance of architecture in the network. While bloggers in repressed societies do indeed appeal to foreign audiences, they also utilize tools to circumvent the efforts of government to control their speech and access. Still, the existence of foreign transnational networks (of NGOs and media organizations) does influence the proliferation of blogs in Iran by ensuring dissidents that efforts will be taken to address their concerns.

Rahimi, Babak. "Cyberdissent: The Internet in Revolutionary Iran." Middle East Review of International Affairs 7.3 (2003): 101-115. 7
     Apr. 2009

Rahimi's paper argues that, despite the government's efforts to regulate internet use, the rapid expansion of the internet and its uses in Iran has given political dissidents new ways to challenge state authority. The article opens with a historical overview of the development of the internet in Iran and the government's subsequent response. Rahimi notes that the number of Internet users in Iran is growing exponentially (at the time of the article, use was expected to soar from 1.2 million in 2003 to 15 million in 2006). Initially, the Islamic Republic welcomed the internet, hoping that it would boost the country's commercial and educational sectors and alleviate economic troubles caused by the Iran-Iraq War. While the Internet did promote economic competition (particularly for the development of private telecommunications and technology sectors free from state-control), the internet has become an important medium for interactions both within Iran and with the outside world. Internet users, particularly women, are turning to blogs as a medium for the expression that is denied them by strict society. By telling their stories, these women are defying the government's strict moral code.

It was not, however, until 2003 that the Iranian government employed any systematic method to block websites or filter internet content. Access providers were held responsible for preventing access to immoral or dissident content, but this requirement was, at the time Rahimi wrote, rarely enforced. This is largely explained through the government's lack of technological expertise, need for the economic benefits of the internet, and officials' desire to use the new medium to promote government policies and reputation. In the face of censorship and closure of print media organizations, the internet has provided a new arena of confrontation. Starting in 2000, the judiciary began to shut down specific newspapers and websites. In November 2001, the government declared that all ISPs would be required to submit to state control. Most recently, the government has attempted to filter activity, arrest web designers, and enact restrictions in the production and reception of content. Bloggers have increasingly been imprisoned.

Rahimi's article provides interesting background on the history and development of the Internet in Iran. By explaining the diversity of Iranian internet users, the article indirectly explains the wide variety of content found on Iranian servers. Similarly, Rahimi notes that regulation in Iran was the result of specific historical events. He thus demonstrates that in order to fully understand the rise of blogs and the policies used to regulate them, it is important to understand the larger context of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the principles that guide the Islamic Republic.

Council for Research Excellence. Traditional Television Remains "800 Pound Gorilla" In Video Media Arena. Richard Zackon. 26 Mar 2009. <http://www.researchexcellence.com/news/032609_vcm.php?>

This Video Consumer Mapping (VCM) study has shown that traditional television is safe from an Internet television takeover. Surprisingly, the study also yielded the results that younger baby boomers (individuals aged 45-54) watch the most Internet TV, when the common belief is that Internet television is most rapidly consumed by teenagers and twenty-something year-olds. The young baby boomers not only watch the most Internet TV, but the have the greatest amount of “daily screen time” as well. However, the difference between the screen time of young baby boomers and the rest of the population is minimal (9 ½ hours versus 8 ½ hours). The VCM research also found that the amount of online television that viewers watch pales in comparison to their time spent in front of the traditional television—only two minutes per day.  The study also proved that individuals are still watching advertisements on television, assuaging some of the concerns of advertisers and television executives. The only real findings that strongly emphasized time shifting was that for DVR users, watching DVR-ed television was much more common than viewing live TV. This research gives a greater perspective on how audience members view content and how much they continue to consume.

This research is crucial in backing up my thesis because it shows actual proof that traditional television continues to be the dominant medium for television programming. The research also is key in debunking many of the common mistruths about Internet television consumption in terms of the amount of time spent watching the content and the individuals who watch it. These findings will strengthen my paper by giving me strong supporting facts of the television habits of the American public.

The Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for Communication at USC. The Future of Television? Marissa Gluck and Meritxell Roca Sales. Sept 2008. <http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:DW7Vx0zemikJ:www.learcenter.org/pdf/FutureofTV.pdf+hulu+%2B+television>

Sales and Gluck’s research shows how users are consuming content online and how their viewing habits on television are changing. The report cites Nielson, writing that television is still the medium with which consumers spend the most time engaged. Despite this, television ratings are dropping. Sales and Gluck examine why this has occurred. They assert that due to all of the new platforms for watching television—the Internet, mobile phones, DVRS—audiences are becoming more fragmented. Media companies need to take a better look at how this affects their ad dollars and if there are better metrics that need to be used to measure audience members. Sales and Gluck argue that media companies and advertisers are recognizing the new opportunities to be had online.  Networks are even becoming more flexible in terms of business plan, the researchers argue, by NBC Universal and News Corporation putting aside their differences and aggregating all of their material and creating Hulu, a bigger site that is a real contender in the online video world. This venture is just one example of the new media used to exploit the television-Internet connection. Though the future of TV is uncertain, this proves that television executives are making a push to stay current. Sales and Gluck cite four strategies that channels are using to ensure viewers: event programming (so that viewers watch live TV), variable length programming (becoming flexible with formats for every kind of screen), narrative sophistication (making audience members invested in the show) and brand integration (in order to battle ad-skipping technologies).

This study is important to my paper because it describes the predicament that television networks are in and presents solutions to their problems as well as strategies to keep their business afloat. Not only do Sales and Gluck give their opinion, but they also comment on current strategies that are working, such as Hulu, which is an important aspect of my paper. Talking about audience fragmentation, due to time and space shifting is integral because their comments will add to the strength of my thesis and the depth of my argument. They study many viewing patterns and include many charts and exact data, which I will have to examine in order to ensure that my argument has validity

Gopal, Ram D., Sudip Bhattacharjee, and G. Lawrence Sanders. "Do Artists Benefit from Online Music Sharing?." Journal of Business 79.3 (May 2006): 1503-1533. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt Library, Philadelphia, PA. 8 Apr. 2009

The Sanders and Gopal article "Do Artists Benefit from Online Music Sharing?" discusses the economic implications of the internet and music file sharing on the recording industry. As the authors describe, it has become increasingsly simple for users to search and download files from the internet. While proponents of online music state that file sharing expands the market and helps new artists to become known. Additionally, they argue that by downloading music users will often sample the music and then purchase the entire album. On the other hand, however, opponents state that file sharing hurts sales because instead of buying the music, users are just downloading it for free. The challenge, Sanders and Gopal state, is to make it easier and more convenient for users to purchase the music than it is for them to steal the music. The other facet of the issue that the authors debate is the accessability and cost of music sampling. The authors argue that lower sampling costs erodes the phenomenon of superstardom and that more inexpensive and more convenient sampling methods will persuade users to purchase their music rather than downloading files illegally.

This article is relevant to my paper topic because it demonstrates how usage of the internet has influenced both the recording industry and how people consume music. While much of the statistics and math in this article are a little beyond what the average reader can understand. However, the point that the authors are making is quite relevant, especially with regards to the new varied pricing that iTunes has instituted in the last week. As piracy has become so easily accessible to the majority of the public, it is difficult to see how the future of online file sharing will play out and how this will affect the recording industry. What we must consider as these issues are further debated is that if the artists who are creating the music are not compensated, they will no longer make music for the consumers to enjoy. Therefore, perhaps, as the authors suggest, more convenient sampling prices will persuade the consumers to purchase their music rather than download illegally and, perhaps, through some restructuring of the market, we can save the struggling economy of the recording industry.

McClure, Steve. "Freston Sees New Media Aiding Music Biz." Billboard 111.27 (03 July 1999): 57. EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt Library, Philadelphia, PA. 7 Apr. 2009 <https://proxy.library.upenn.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=keh&AN=1973296&site

Steve McClure's article "Freston Sees New Media Aiding Music Biz," published in Billboard in July of 1999, recounts the statements of Tom Freston, then the CEO and Chairman of MTV Networks. Freston stated that the music industry had nothing to fear from the proliferation of the Internet. Using the example of video and radio, playing on The Buggles 1979 song "Video Killed the Radio Star," Freston states that video never really killed the radio star, but rather radio altered itself and exanded to fit the new industry organization. Freston hypothesizes that new media, such as the internet, will only help to expand the music industry rather than rendering older, more traditional, media obselete.
Finally, McClure notes Freston's conception of the four ways that the Internet will affect the music business: more convenience, sense of community, more choice, and more creativity.

It is important to consider, when reading this article, that it was written in July of 1999. Therefore, as the Internet was becoming more widely available and open to new possibilities as well as the general public, the music industry was anticipating vast changes to operations. While Freston was not always correct in his predictions of how the Internet would influence the music business, what is perhaps most important here is the way that Freston argues for the adaptation rather than death of media. While The Buggles said that video killed the radio star, radio adapted for fit the new format, just as radio and video have adapted to the internet via the proliferation of sites such as Pandora, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc. Just as the Internet revolutionized the music business at the turn of the century, the internet will continue to do so in the future with new media and altered forms of traditional media.

Citation: Mitchell, Kimberly et al.  “The Exposure of Youth to Unwanted Sexual Material on the Internet: A National Survey of Risk, Impact and Prevention.” Youth and Society. Vol. 34 No. 3, March 2003: 330-358.  Accessed 6 April 2009.  .

            The authors of the study gave a survey to 1,501 Internet-users between the ages of 10 and 17, asking them about their inadvertent exposure to sexually explicit content while online.  The results found that 25 % of those polled unintentionally encountered sexually explicit material while on the Internet. The people who discovered sexual content tended to be heavy Internet users and were older teens. About one-fifth of those who accidentally viewed the content were embarrassed and very or extremely upset by it. The minors whose parents had put filtering software on their computers were 40 % less likely to have been exposed to unwanted sexual material.  However, most parents did not install filtering softwares on computers. Other forms of parental control, such as restricting the amount time their children could spend on the Internet, did not reduce chance of exposure.

            This study is significant to my paper for a few reasons.  Firstly, the experiment established that children are inadvertently exposed to sexual content, and that this exposure can cause harm.  Knowing that sexual material on the Internet is a problem establishes a greater need for remedies to the situation.  Additionally, this study is important because it measures the effectiveness of different types of controls on preventing youth exposure to sexually explicit material in a relatively scientific manner.  Since filtering was determined to be more effective than parental restrictions, yet was not perfect at preventing exposure to the content, perhaps resources should be devoted to improving filtering softwares and persuading parents to install filtering programs on their children’s computers.  The authors noted that a problem with the study could be that adolescents who have filtering softwares on their computers happen to be more likely to use the web in ways that would shield them from exposure to sexual content, and not the other way around.  If this is the case, perhaps the best way to protect minors from harmful content is to educate them better about smart Internet use.

Citation: Reno v. ACLU 117 S.Ct. 2329. 1997. Cornell Law School. 4 April 2009. <ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZO.html>.

This source is a Supreme Court decision that curtailed the federal government's ability to prohibit that could be harmful for children.   The laws in question were provisions of section 223 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prohibit knowingly transmitting "indecent" and "patently offensive" material on the Web to minors.  The Supreme Court ruled that these provisions were unconstitutional, and upheld the ruling of a lower court, because they violated the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution. The court believed the terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" were too broad, and could restrict content that is actually not harmful.  Additionally, the provisions were struck down because the court felt there was no good way to specifically target and identify Internet users under the age of 18, making this law difficult to violate or enforce.  The portions of the law that prohibited knowingly transmitting obscene materials and child pornography to minors were upheld, because obscene content warrants less free-speech protection than indecent content.  In the decision, written by Justice Stevens and agreed to by a large majority of the justices, there was also an overview of the history of the Internet and an explanation as to why cases upholding government laws monitoring commercial interests to protect children did not apply to this case.

Reno v. ACLU relates to my paper because it is a court case imporatnt to the ongoing battle to determine how best to protect children from harmful content online.  If free speech bars the government from protecting children from certain types of potentially harmful content, then government regulation is not going to be the only solution needed to help shield children.   However, since the government can pass laws regulating obscenity and child pornography, this case does demonstrate that there is a place where government regulation could potentially be helpful and useful.  Stevens' decision would support my thesis, because the difficulty he acknowledges in detecting the age of Internet users makes it difficult for any organization to properly filter content. In order for children to be protected from some content, there will need to be intrinsic motivation for indecent websites to self-regulate and to try not to reach children.

Citation: Majoras, Deborah Platt. “Rights and Responsibility: Protecting Children in a Web 2.0 World.”  Keynote Address at Family Online Safety Institute.  6 December 2007.  Federal Trade Commission. 6 April 2009. http://ftc.gov/speeches/majoras/071206fosi.pdf.

             This document is the copy of a speech made by the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission describing methods used to protect children from dangers lurking online, including harmful content, cyber bullying, and privacy invasion.  After describing the media use of children and some of the dangers they face online, Majoras summarizes the law enforcement efforts the FTC has taken to prevent exposure to harmful content.  The laws the FTC works to enforce have provisions including requiring adult content to be notified as such in the e-mail tagline and preventing websites from asking children too much personal information.  Majoras then describes the FTC’s push and efforts to educate and empower parents and children to stay safe.  These efforts are viewed by the FTC as important because first amendment restrictions will prevent the government from being able to completely restrict dangerous content themselves.  Marjoras also said that it is important for companies to self-regulate content.  Majoras concludes by stating that a multidisciplinary approach is needed in solving this problem.

             This article is important in the broader context of regulating Internet content for children, because the FTC is a major governmental organization involved in the issue.  A governmental organization believing that education and self-regulation needs to supplement governmental regulation enhances the importance of education and self-regulation, which could be seen as an alternative to the government.  This article gives good specifics about the role of the FTC in law-enforcement and education, and describes different features of education programs and self-regulating devices; those details could be useful for figuring out the absolute best way to determine how to protect children.  Although this article was written by someone in the Bush administration, it is likely that the opinions of Obama’s FTC workers are not too different; protecting children from harmful content on the Internet is a bipartisan issue.

Citation: Jordan, Amy. "Children's Media Policy." Children and Electronic Media. Volume 18 No. 1. Spring 2008. 235-355. Annenberg Public Policy Center. 5 April 2009. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/18_10_Jordan.pdf.

Jordan’s article gives an overview of how media policy concerning children is developed and shaped, and what is and is not effective about it.  The article begins by discussing how events and public opinion changes can motivate the government to enact policies protecting children, and how outside groups influence these policies. It outlines how the three branches of government work together to shape these policies, and what the role of the FCC and the FTC are in enforcing the laws. The article then describes motivations by media industries to self-regulate content, types of self-regulation, and how self-regulation and government regulation interact with each other. While a combination of legislation and self-regulation seems to be the inevitable and most logical way to regulate new media, according to Jordan, she thinks these actions are still largely ineffective; they are not enacted properly, little is known about media habits and production of material online is becoming increasingly decentralized.
 
 While much of the article discusses policies relating to media other than the Internet, the article is useful as an overview of the formation process for children’s media policy, especially because it contains useful charts. The similarities and differences between the Internet and older forms of media are important to note in order to figure out what types of regulations used on other forms of media could and could not be applicable to the Internet.  For example, ratings systems akin to the ones established for television shows and video games would likely not be a good way to regulate Internet content. So many websites are created on a regular basis that it would be impossible to assign ratings to all of them. This article supports my thesis because it describes issues relating to the regulation of Internet Service Providers. Jordan believes that the Internet cannot be fully regulated by the government because Congress and the courts treat ISPs like common carriers rather than media outlets. Perhaps it also provides a counterargument to my thesis, however, because the author does not think that self-regulation is necessarily effective.

Citation: Etzioni, Amitai.  “On Protecting Children from Speech.” Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2004: 3-53. Google Scholar. 5 April 2009. http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-1/Etzioni.pdf

            This article discusses and analyses the issues concerning children’s rights to free speech.  According to the author, past court cases care more about how restricting access for children would inadvertently affect adults than they do about how there is a compelling state interest to protect children from harmful speech.  To remedy this, Etzoini thinks Internet access for children and adults should become separate.  Where it is not possible to make a separation, government regulation is needed, because voluntary measures, such as parents choosing to purchase filtering softwares, are generally ineffective.  A review of research studies concludes children can be harmed by viewing objectionable media content, although this has been more definitely proven for violent content than for pornography.  Etzoini also says that as children get older, they should have greater free speech rights, and should have their content restricted less.

            The article provides a counterargument to some of the other documents published concerning how children can be protected from harmful content on the Internet. The Supreme Court cases concerning section 223 of the CDA and COPA were struck down in part because it was believed that there was truly no way for to restrict content for children without also inadvertently restricting it for adults.  Etzioni, however, believes there may be ways to separate Internet access based on age. Additionally, this article differs from the arguments made by Thierer, because it  favors governmental regulation of content over self-regulation. Etizoni’s reason for the ineffectiveness of voluntary regulation does however relate to a concept Thierer discusses – that of self efficacy.  If people’s motivation to filter the Internet content of minors, self-regulation could potentially work. The problem right now is that efficacy is too low for people to want to take an initiative and regulate content.

Citation: Thierer, Adam and John Palfrey. "Dialogue: the Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks." 5 March 2009. Ars Technica. 1 April 2009. <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars/2>.

This source presents a discussion between Adam Thierer, Director of the Progress and Freedom Foundation's Center for Digital Media Freedom, and John Palfrey, Harvard law professor and Vice Dean, about the merits of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act and the role online service providers, including social networking websites, should play in protecting children from obscene content.  Thierer has concerns about revisions to CDA 230; he does not think social networks should have extensive liability concerning objectionable material on their sites, and he thinks CDA 230 has been beneficial overall.  However, Palfrey believes that ISPs and social networking websites should not be immune from tort lawsuits claiming harm from the carriers’ negligence.  Instead, accusations should be allowed to be brought to court, where the plaintiffs will have to prove that the ISPs were in fact negligent.  Palfrey believes that CDA 230 should be amended in such a way because it will encourage online service providers to make more of an effort to protect minors and develop more innovative ways of protection. He added, however, that most ISPs would not be found negligent by a court, and a multi-faceted approach must be taken to achieve the goal of protecting children on the Internet.  Palfrey also acknowledges the merits of CDA 230, and said he would not want the goals of it to be drastically impeded.

            The dialogue presented is a good analysis of the issues concerning child protection and CDA 230.  The dialogue format enhances the analysis because it allows Palfrey to address the questions raised by a critic of his opinion.  Palfrey’s approach to modifying CDA 230 strikes a balance between the competing goals of shielding minors from harmful content and promoting the development of ISPs.  However, Palfrey is the first to admit that a change in the law would likely not make too much of a difference in increasing liability, especially among the larger ISPs who can afford to make some effort to protect children.  What is perhaps the most important element of Palfrey’s argument is that he stated that there needs to be an increase in efficacy for children to become more protected online.  Empowering people to protect children could achieve the same goal without having to navigate the complex legislative process.

Citation: "Communications Decency Act of 1996: Section 230" 1996. Cornell Law School. 4 April 2009. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html.

This source is a section of Congressional Legislation that plays an important role in regulating the filtering of online content, with some particulars relating to the filtering of such content to protect children. Titled “Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material,” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 guarantees Internet Service Providers (ISPs) a great deal of legal protection.  The section of the law begins by describing the increasingly large role that the Internet was providing in people’s lives in 1996.  Congress then establishes broad principles that guide its policy concerning the Internet.  After that, Section 230 begins to lay out protections for ISPs, saying they are not the speakers or publishers of content provided to them by another service and guaranteeing civil protection for efforts made “in good faith” to filter obscene material. The law also requires ISPs to notify parents of parental control filtering programs that they can use to protect their children.  Section 230 concludes by describing the previously mentioned provisions relationships to other laws and by defining terminology used in the document.

          This document relates to my project because it has a large effect on the policy concerning the protection of children on the Internet.  If ISPs are not considered the author of any of the works people can access through them, they have less of an incentive to develop effective filtering software.  Section 230 of the CDA wants ISPs to act “in good faith” and try to restrict access to harmful material to children.  However, the term “in good faith” is ambiguous and could be interpreted loosely.  Despite the problems with the law when it comes to protecting children, it is understandable that Congress decided to take the approach of siding with the ISPs.  In 1996, when the law was written, the Internet was a relatively new development, and many people still did not have access to it.  As a result, the government wanted to prioritize helping ISPs, because it wanted the ISPs to expand and be able to give services to a greater number of people.  Over a decade later, the online landscape has changed significantly, with the vast majority of people in the United States having Internet access.  Perhaps Congress should now focus more on promoting the filtering of harmful content and less on supporting the legal and economic interests of the ISPs.  This would likely to be tricky to do, because the ISPs would likely continue to lobby for their position and fight back, and too much government regulation could be seen as violating the Constitution.

Citation: "Children's Internet Protection Act." 2000. Internet Free Expression Alliance. 4 April 2009. <http://ifea.net/cipa.pdf>.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a law passed by Congress that encourages filtering the Internet to protect minors by giving schools and libraries financial incentives to do so.  Throughout the text, the legislation defines terminology used in the remainder of the document.  It states that schools and libraries cannot use federal funds to buy computers or aid Internet access unless they have policies and softwares in place designed to filter visuals on the Internet that contain obscenity, child pornography and material harmful to minors.  There is also discussion of how the government plans to implement the law in schools and libraries and how groups can waive this requirement.  An exception to the filtering rule is also provided; schools can disable filtering softwares for research purposes.  The law concludes by discussing how schools and libraries need to document and enforce the policies outlined in CIPA, and what the legal ramifications for the schools and libraries are if they do not enforce the policies.

            CIPA is relevant to my paper because it demonstrates how the government can constitutionally play a role in protecting children online and it shows governmental support for self-regulation. CIPA, unlike parts of the CDA and COPA, has been ruled to be Constitutional and not in violation of the first amendment, because Congress is providing incentives for schools and libraries to regulate content on their own computers, rather than requiring regulation. Congress seemed to take the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning the CDA into consideration when drafting CIPA, because the law allows filtering of obscene and pornographic material but not indecent material.  Encouraging communities to enact regulations protecting children themselves is also a better strategy than governmental regulation because it allows communities to better apply their own standards regarding what is obscene and harmful to minors.  The government’s established definitions of obscenity and harm to minors involve applying community standards, so this law does a good job of following past legislative precedents, giving the law even greater validity.

Graham, Paul. "Why TV Lost." Paul Graham. Mar 2009. 3 Apr 2009. <http://www.paulgraham.com/convergence.html>.

Paul Graham states that he believes that viewers will not watch Internet television and traditional television in moderation, but they will stop watching traditional television all together. In his blog entry, Graham writes that TV shows will continue to exist, however, the television medium will no longer be dominant. He gives four reasons why “TV lost”: the Internet’s open platform, Moore’s Law, piracy, and social application, which he cites as the most surprising reason for victory. He also believes that social applications on computers are the biggest forces in the contest, because these applications are what draws individuals to computers. He believes that the television executives need to face the facts and rework their business models with computers as the dominant format for viewing shows. On the Internet, individuals are no longer bound a specific viewing time, but can watch at their own convenience. He cites this also as the demise of local television, since people will no longer congregate and watch a show based on location, thus diminishing the usefulness of local television ad spots and local news. This causes huge problems for television networks, which are run by affiliate stations in their local areas. Graham notes that network’s new push towards live television is to strategically force people to view the shows during an exact time on traditional television. He sees the networks trying to fill their own agendas instead of changing with the times and creating new strategies to attract viewers. He thinks that the networks are hindered by this, not realizing the value that Internet can bring by allowing greater access to more television consumers.

This article is important to my paper because it presents a counterargument to my thesis, forcing me to defend my ideas and prove this blog entry wrong. While, my thesis supports a slightly altered business model, this blog entry goes much farther, calling television obsolete. Graham’s concerns will help me think of any pitfalls in my argument and will allow my paper to be strong because of it. I will need to examine his four reasons why Internet is victorious, and develop my own counterpoints of why traditional television will not be going out of business any time soon.

Stelter, Brian. "Serving Up Television Without the TV Set." The New York Times 10 Mar 2008: C1.

This New York Times article examines Internet television consumers’ viewing patterns. They note that many individuals are beginning to watch television via their laptops. The article has quotes from many industry insiders such NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker and Family Guy creator Seth Macfarlane. Both acknowledge the changing nature of the industry and promote change so that the television business financially stays afloat. The article also discusses how the shows individuals watch online correlates with the most popular shows in primetime. However, it is difficult to know the exact amount of times that each show has been streamed because there are no Nielsen ratings for the Internet as of now. The article discusses how this relates to advertising money for networks, and adds that viewers find advertisements while streaming to be more memorable. Most importantly, the article talks to real people about their online video consumption habits. One man, said he even gave up his cable service for online streaming, which he hooked up to his television. Many said that they liked to watch online because they could time shift without having to remember to program their DVR. This market is growing, and viewers are jumping on the online video bandwagon.

This article is important to my paper because it has accounts from real viewers about why they are starting to time and space shift by watching television on their computers. The article also provides the information that the most watched shows on television are the most streamed. This shows that people are going online for the same content on television, instead of liking to watch different or more mindless programming on the web. The article also has many good quotes from people who work in the industry, which adds even more proof that the television executives are cognizant that they need to shift their programming strategies and individuals shift their viewing tendencies.

Einav, Gali & John Carey. "Is TV Dead?." Televsion Quarterly Volume XXXVII - 2 (2007): 19-24.

In this journal article in Television Quarterly Gali Einav and John Carey argue that television is far from dead, in fact they believe this is the dawn of the “Golden Age of Media.” Einav and Carey assert that the coming of new technologies, most importantly the Internet, does not mark the demise of television, but opens a whole new door of opportunities for television networks, media providers and even consumers. At this turning point in television we have to re-evaluate what we think of as “television viewing” and what it means to “watch TV.” The burgeoning technology of the past decade has made television more accessible to the viewer, allowing them to watch their favorite shows when and where they want to. All of this new media is not replacing television, in fact, as Comscore noted, the amount of unique television streamers doubled in the past year, while traditional television viewers also increased. Einav and Carey argue that this is due to the rise in multitasking. A whole new realm of television viewing online has opened now that networks are offering full-length television shows. They also note a study done by nbc.com’s Rewind viewer player, that shows that most of television streaming online has been done at night, much like the habits of watching primetime television. These viewers are not forgoing primetime TV, but are instead, using it as a platform to catch up on their favorite shows or to watch in bed if their spouse is watching an alternate program on television. They note that professional content from networks is dominating the rise of streaming video online, benefiting those broadcasters. The television business is not dead, but the environment where people watch, and they time they watch it is shifting. 

This article is important for my paper because it supports the idea that TV is still alive and well. Einav and Carey acknowledge that time and space shifting is going on, but they do not see this as a bad thing, something which I also argue. They also discuss how NBC is using new metrics to study the habits of streaming video online, which is important to my paper and the patterns of shifted television consumption. I argue that networks need to be aware of these new formats and find different ways to take advantage of these opportunities, which Einav and Carey also support, and elaborate on, giving many insightful thoughts about the television industry today.

NBC Universal and News Corporation (22 Mar 2007) NBC Universal and News Corp. Announce Deal with Internet Leaders AOL, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo! to Create A Premium Onion Video Site with Unprecedented Reach. Press Release. Retrieved on 3 Apr 2009.<http://www.hulu.com/press/new_video_venture.html>

This press release announces NBC Universal and News Corporation’s joint venture, Hulu.com. The two corporations banded together in order to create the largest high-quality Internet video distribution website. The site contains hours of programming, including full-length television shows and movies from the NBC Universal and News Corporation libraries, clips, and other content from different media companies. The press release notes that the site wanted to have a broad reach so they partnered with AOL, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo! in order to assure a large distribution field. All of the content on Hulu.com will be free, no matter where or how it is accessed. The content will have embedded commercials, but they will but much shorter than on traditional television. The executives stressed that they want to be able to give consumers high quality programming when they want, where they want it. The site will also contain a user-generated type of experience by allowing individuals to cut up videos, create playlists, discover online communities and make mash-ups. The networks developed this functions so that viewers can have an interactive experience with their favorite television shows and movies.  This website is the networks acknowledgement that television on the Internet is a reality and they need to start changing with the times, while retaining copyright on their intellectual property.

This press release is important to my paper because it gives a look into what NBC Universal and News Corp. were attempting to do when they created Hulu.com. It is important because it shows a great step in the television industry, since the networks are recognizing that there is more that needs to be done and they should embrace time and space shifting instead of rejecting it. Hulu is a very important example of convergence in my paper and this press release gives a great overview of the site. This also supports my thesis because the release in no way cites the end of television, but only an extended part of its future.

Pavlik, John V. "Broadband Mobile Media: Digital Video Goes Wireless." Television Quarterly Volume XXXVII - 1(2007): 7-14.

In this journal article, John V. Pavlik describes how the television, broadband and mobile worlds are converging. People are increasingly beginning to watch video content video their mobile phones. Most of these programs are formatted for the mobile screen and are cut into shorter clips. For example, Sony has launched a product called Minisode, in which there are short form videos from some of their feature films. This does not necessarily hurt television, Pavlik argues, because the individuals watching these clips are doing so at a time when they wouldn’t ordinarily be watching TV. Most often these videos are viewed on-the-go or at work. Mobile video viewing dramatically drops during primetime, showing that traditional television is not hindered by this new technology. TV networks are catching on, with CBS, ABC, MTV and ESPN all focusing on creating mobile content. Cell phones are an important platform because the majority of Americans own them, and the amount of users that have internet access on their phones is increasing. The biggest problem facing mobile video users today is that it uses up a lot of the phone’s battery life. This is why video iPods are also becoming important forces in the mobile video market. Apple’s iPhone is also bringing new life to mobile video because its battery life allows for up to seven hours of video use. The mobile phone had now been named the “third screen” behind TV and the computer screen, as video consumption via cell phones is on the rise. As wi-fi technology is explored on phones more and more, mobile video quality is also becoming better. Slingbox, owned by Slingmedia, has a developed a technology that allows users to stream live television from their DVRs or cable boxes to their computer screens, and now even their cell phones, providing multiple platforms for accessible time and space shifting. With all of these new forms of technology, the revenues from mobile video are increasing and are making this “third screen” a real force in the transition of television and new media.

This journal article is important to my paper because it presents another platform for time and space shifting via the Internet. This article also supports my assertion that traditional television is not in danger and these alternate outlets rather help the industry. The article also gives some good examples of how the television networks are responding to these new technological changes and presents interesting ways that they are utilizing the platform, such as short form videos and new companies like Slingmedia. The article discusses time and space shifting outside of the home and when individuals are at work, which is important for my paper and has not been discussed at length in any of the other articles. This article widens my perspective on what the “Internet” means and gives a broader definition of time and space shifting television.

Levin, Gary. "Viewers' shifting habits redefine 'TV hit'; 'Gossip' speaks louder than ratings." USA Today 24 Oct 2007: Life; 1D.

This article discusses the case of several primetime television shows and how they have fared with time shifting, increasing audience members who DVR the show or watch online. This proves how the audience numbers watching television in different formats at diverse times is a reality and that the ratings need to evolve in order to take a more accurate look at the number of viewers. Levin discusses how these ratings systems are struggling to find a better way to measure an audience, especially since these numbers are for advertisers and often time shifting programming either makes ads irrelevant or skips them all together. Levin talks about other models of specific television shows and how they are pertinent to his argument. The CBS program Jericho is a great success story for online content because the 5.3 million episodes streamed online is what convinced the network to renew the fledgling show for a second season. NBC’s The Office, had a similar fate as its first season renewal was based on the ¼ DVR audience, the highest of any series. iTunes is another way that shows can get clout, as Levin argues having the number one iTunes selling television show is like a New York Times “Best Seller” label for a book. All of these new technologies are putting pressure on television to expand beyond its traditional format, but are also working in the networks’ favor because the frequent use is calling attention to ratings companies to change their strategies. The biggest question is—how can one monetize ratings for advertisers in these different formats? This is something which Levin ponders, along with what the best model for time-shifting is.

This article supports my thesis by showing that the majority of viewers still watch on traditional TV (only ¼ of The Office’s viewers time-shifted), while also recognizing that time and space shifting is something that television executives still need to be aware of. This article is also important to my thesis because it discusses the issues that the industry is facing in developing this new technology, especially in monetizing the novel content. Levin’s argument adds to my paper by discussing not only the negative effects that Internet TV has on the television industry, but also some positive ones, which brings a new element and interesting point of view to the debate.

Wildstrom, Stephen H. "Internet TV Just Got A Lot Closer." Businessweek 16 Mar 2009: 65-66.

This article discusses the coming of television on the Internet and how it is going to affect traditional TV. Wildstrom explains that television will continue to feel the impact that Internet is making on their business, but that traditional television will not be undermined. He explains the main issues with Internet TV that will keep it from becoming the dominant format, which he believes is its lack of a centralized content provider, lower quality viewing experience and inability to showcase live feeds such as the Oscars or sports games. Wilstrom introduces a new form of open source software, call Boxee, which combats some of these shortcomings. Boxee is like a cable box which acts as a television guide, aggregating all video content from the internet and displaying one’s available options. He then discusses how this allows for time shifting, because viewers can watch content whenever they want, as long as it is available online, and wherever they want, because all you need is a computer. Wildstrom writes about using Boxee and his experience with the product, but discusses how it is not advanced enough to compare with the current television system. Boxee also faced another obstacle because Hulu.com forced Boxee to take down their content from their site because of concerns from cable providers.

This article is important for my paper because it discusses the technological aspects involved in switching television viewing from the traditional television screen to the Internet. The article also introduces other ways in which this space and time shifting is occurring aside from Hulu. Hulu’s decision to block Boxee from using its content also provides insight into the inner workings of Hulu and the desires of broadcasters and cable operators when bringing television to the web. Wildstrom’s argument also supports my thesis because he believes that traditional television still has a future, citing all of the current aspects of TV that help it continue to dominant the market.

summary

anaylsis

     This article discusses the legal framework in which copyright cases are debated and decided. Geller begins by describing the basis of “territoriality” and how it is derived from the international system of nation-states and clear boundaries. The author admits that this definition is highly problematic when dealing with cyberspace and transfers of data that cut across borders. He then goes on to discuss the variations in each country’s laws regarding cyberspace copyright infringement and how this often leads to inconsistent judgments. For example, in a case that involves multiple countries, a court may award infringement compensation within the conservative limits of a particular country’s legal system. At the same time, it might use justification from another country’s legal code to grant a severe punishment. Geller concludes that the most effective way of combating international intellectual piracy is through a standardized legal code that eliminates such gross inconsistencies.
     This paper is very valuable for the question that I am trying to answer, because it shows the legal perspective and legal limitations of the prosecution of international copyright infringement cases. The Internet operates in a borderless context and if the international community wants to regulate online copyright infringement, multinational institutions needs to modify their framework. Similarly, if the ACTA is to be effective, it should not be based on a borders and territoriality. The paper also demonstrates that the ACTA will merely add another set of rules to the already complicated international legal network. Nevertheless, the paper fails to propose a way to iron out the inconsistencies in legal codes around the world. Perhaps the ACTA is a valuable multinational forum but its focus should be shifted to addressing the problems within the existing legal system and not creating new laws.

Shujen Wang, the author of this aritcle, analyzes the complexity of protecting property in a technologically advancing society. By recognizing the film industry's universal impact, she aims to situate ideas of piracy and copyright in "the larger contexts of power, technology, and the networking logic of globalization. The reader is provided with a history of important legislation that has led the industry to its current situation, noting the DMCA as important national legislation and TRIPS as a global one. Acknowledging that the copyright industries continue to be a leading force in the U.S. economy, she summarizes reports from the International Intellectual Property Alliance, which break down where copyright markets receive revenue and what percentages are lost to piracy. The article highlights the importance of overseas markets and how the MPAA has adjusted to accommodate these markets.

Another section emphasizes that technology and piracy are inextricably linked to power and control. Each country has devised its own standards for copyright protection, but in a world based on global information economy, nations must work together to protect property. While it is up to each country to enforce copyright laws, members of the World Trade Organization must accommodate broader terms of agreement. The WTO agreement states that that "all state laws of its member countries must conform to the TRIPS agreement by 2006." Such agreements are deemed necessary because of the digital advancements that have complicated anti-piracy efforts. The next section of the article provides a background of film piracy dating back to the 1970s. Back then, finding pirates was simpler when such copies were tangible, but in this digitally advanced realm, "information is stored digitally, content is liberated form the medium and all that flows to the recipient is the information." Furthermore, the speed at which information is transferred increases while the cost to reproduce it decreases--ultimately giving pirates an advantage. She argues that copyright protection is the only way to preserve our global information economy.

Contextualizing copyright and piracy in a global context reveals the immense significance digital technologies have in global trade. This article outlines the history of the film industry and the ways in which it has had to alter to sustain economically.

This article analyzes the preventative measures the movie industry must take in order to protect their copyrights and stifle piracy. It is made clear that various factors, particularly the invent of broadband Internet, peer-to-peer networks, and improvements in video compression technologies have made such efforts extremely difficult. Thus the industry must exercise legal and technical means to battle competing markets. The entertainment industry is aiming to hold the information industry accountable for all copyright violations. Furthermore, they are urging the information industry to also institute anti-piracy technologies in all software and hardware. By elaborating on the previous legal battles that complicate the debate on whether to hold the user or manufacturer accountable for piracy, the authors device a better solution that assigning blame. The article suggests that the movie industry should adapt their supply chain to provide cheaper, quality, convenient products than any illegal form could offer.

This new model would force the industry to reconstruct how they distribute, exhibit, and produce films. The second section delineates the current framework of the industry tracing back to the 1970s. The weaknesses are exposed and the industry's long-term "techo-phobia" is identified as a major culprit. The next section brings attention to the legal battles of the MPAA and the RIAA to protect copyrights and further discusses the benefits and setbacks of the DMCA. Two organizations have been assembled to try and deal with these problems; one is the Digital Media Device Association and the other is Project Hudson, which is made up of technology giants such as Samsung, Toshiba, and Nokia. Various solutions are proposed, such as digital watermarking and smart-card technology, but all have flaws. Because neither legal nor technological solutions effectively can eliminate piracy, the most sensible answer is economically based. In terms of distribution, the article suggests creating e-Blockbusters near ISPs, which would enable consumers to rent movies in a cheap and accessible manner. For exhibition, theaters must adapt by adjusting the "window scheme, offering differentiated digital viewing experiences, and developing fast-access storage to reduce portable media." Production will take on a purely digital form, reducing the need for human interaction almost completely.

There are plenty of viable options available to improve and sustain the movie industry; it is just a matter or time and technology. The aforementioned solutions can improve the industry and successfully eliminate piracy if executed effectively. The article articulates my very thesis and attempts to provide an answer as to how the movie industry can change to this digitally advancing world.

The Internet is forcing the movie industry to adapt its current business model in order to keep up with the online trend. With the growing popularity of online movie download sites, Hollywood will have to figure out a way to compete. This article featured in The Economist argues that if the film industry embraces the Internet they will profit considerably more than if they were to fight it. One of the most advanced Internet distribution sites is ZML.com, which offers over a thousand films for download to various devices at low costs and good quality. Unfortunately for Hollywood, this website is a pirate site. Piracy and the increased accessibility pirates have to online material discourages the film industry from making titles accessible on the web. While film industry has always been slow to accept new technologies, failure to do so with the Internet could result in damaging effects. The article points out that studios such as Paramount and Disney were opposed to the DVD at its inception, primarily because they would rather keep their stringent business model than adapt to a new one. Still, some studios are embracing the Internet and its potential to spur new revenue.

While some studios have helped to create legal online rental services, they have reaped little success. The author suggests that download-to-buy options would be more profitable and could show the movie industry the capabilities of the Internet. In addition, the current sites are not particularly enticing for users because the movies offered are second-rate--with very few blockbusters or major hits available. The article goes on to explain the reasons for Hollywood's reluctance to go online. Most notably, the DVD industry is so popular that they fear risking such a large source of revenue. In reality, the industry could profit by increasing the amount of titles available through an infinite online database rather than through limited shelf space in DVD rental stores. Regardless, there exists technological obstacles that are difficult to combat. For example, download times can reach up to an hour and most people would rather watch movies on their televisions than on their computers. Lastly, the "lack of common standards" prevents a uniform system for online distributors. Despite these challenges, the article points out the potential remedies and the various ways the industry is currently taking steps towards overcoming these difficulties.

Although wary of what the Internet may bring, the industry recognizes its potential to reach the masses. Studios spend a significant percentage on online marketing because it is so successful and provides beneficial feedback. By targeting substantial groups interested in specific subjects, the industry can use this response to shape their films. The most promising invention described is the flash-memory enabled kiosk, which "overcomes many of the weaknesses of the present model and the current deficencies of the Internet," says Mr. Lieberfarb, who is on the board of MOD Systems.This article directly aids my paper through its summarization of the multitude of adaptations and inventions that film industry has had to make in such a digital world. It is apparent that the movie industry must adapt if it does not want to falter in this digitally advancing society.

    This blog is divided into three different parts that deal with distinct, yet related topics.  Firstly, there is the issue of “preserving the quality of movies for fans like these and so many others, we must stop these Internet thieves from illegally trading valuable copyrighted materials online” (movies television shows aren’t mentioned, but the same is true).  Strong ticket and DVD sales are likely with huge blockbuster films even with films that are illegal downloaded and distributed prior to actual theatrical release.  Movies such as “Star Wars,” with huge fans, do not have to worry about the potential consequences.  Films that don’t have a set fan bases are more likely to be affected by the illegal downloading process.

            Secondly, the issue of the Boucher Bill is discussed.  The U.S. Congress was sent a letter this past May arguing the passing of the Boucher-Doolittle Bill, saying “(1) that the legislation would “legalize hacking tools” and that (2) the bill misinterprets the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court Betamax decision.”  However, that information was incorrect and opponents of the bill were quoting a previous year’s version.  In actuality, this year’s version of the bill says that (1) “it would not legalize the manufacture, sale or other public provision of circumvention (or so-called “hacking”) tools” and (2) by directly quoting the Supreme Court’s Betamax decision, “it shall not be a violation of the Copyright Act to manufacture or distribute a hardware or software product capable of substantial non-infringing uses.”

            Lastly,  there is discussion of the FCC’s case arguing for the implementation of broadcast flags into digital television (DTV).  “The core issue is consideration of the conditions under which broadcasters will turn off their current, over-the-air analog signal and replace it with a digital one.”  Without the new, proper equipment, consumers’ televisions will no longer be in working order.  The FCC wants to put broadcast flags in each individuals television to detected “what can be copied or transmitted, and under what terms.”  The FCC court case was dismissed after the courts decided that the FCC did not have the power necessary to do what the intended.  The FCC is now looking to implement legislation to give them the power they need.  All in all, the broadcast flags will cost consumers a lot of money and the idea does not seem to be well received. 

In a recent case, television studios realized that a certain individual had gotten a copy of a number of episodes of the popular Fox television show 24. These episodes had yet to be aired, but were soon uploaded to the Internet. The individual was charged with “uploading copyrighted material…knowing the work was intended for commercial distribution.” The episodes were first uploaded to the website LiveDigital, but quickly reached YouTube, therefore both “were served subpoenas under the DMCA demanding they disclose the identities of the users who uploaded the episodes.” In this landmark case, the individual could receive a rather severe punishment. Not only were the uploaded episodes considered valuable because of the popularity of 24 and the fact they hadn’t been aired yet, but copyright officials are trying to use this case as an example for future pirates. Normally, Internet copyright infringement cases are taken up against “user share sites.” The fact that an individual did the same gives copyright officials more incentive to protect “‘the rights of the content owners who invest millions of dollars in a television series must be protected.’”

Twentieth Century Fox, who produces 24 and is a major studio in the television industry “hopes it [this case] will serve as a powerful warning that uploading copyrighted TV shows and movies to the Internet can be a crime with significant penalties and will be prosecuted as such. ”It seems fair to say that this particular studio is not alone in their beliefs. It also seems that the individual prosecuted in the 24 case is being so harshly is so that others will be deterred from attempting the same. Television copyright officials “have no choice but to take it seriously, because if they don’t catch it early, they won’t be able to stop it at all ’” Without enforcing harsh punishments, illegal downloading and uploading of copyrighted material will continue to the point that there will be no laws to prevent it or punish for it. Officials are implementing harsh penalties, but more importantly they are putting into effect laws that are current with the technology.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom International Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against Youtube claiming massive copyright infringement by the defendant. Viacom filed the suit after sending takedown notices to Youtube demanding over 150,000 copyrighted videos be removed from its servers. In its complaint, Viacom notes “millions have seized the opportunities digital technology provides to express themselves creatively.” However, Viacom argues that Youtube has “harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale.” Youtube, the complaint urges, has built a library of infringing video clips in order to increase profit. Rather than attempting to remove all infringing videos, Youtube “has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the Youtube site…to detect infringing videos and send takedown notices to Youtube.”  Viacom claims that Youtube increases its own value at the expense of copyright holders through the following methods: displaying advertisements above infringing videos, allowing users to embed infringing files onto other websites to draw users to Youtube and subsequently increase ad revenue, and permitting users to keep copyrighted videos hidden from the public. Viacom also notes that Youtube hosts the videos on its own servers, rather than simply acting as a conduit through which users pass files. This, in Viacom’s interpretation, makes Youtube the primary copyright infringer as it is the entity that is actually “performing” the copyrighted footage.

Youtube is one of the more influential websites in the development of Web 2.0. The website has essentially ushered in a new age of internet democratization by giving all users the ability to create and host content. Viacom’s complaint fails to take several important copyright issues into account, however, decreasing the lawsuit’s validity in several key issues. First and foremost, it assumes that Youtube has a clear intention of hosting copyright infringing content. While the court decided that Grokster, in MGM Studios v. Grokster, did not have sufficient non-infringing uses to escape liability, Youtube was developed as a website where average internet users can upload home videos. When asked about a memory associated with Youtube, users will typically discuss a humorous home movie they saw rather than an illegal movie clip. Similarly, Viacom assumes that Youtube is responsible for policing its site for all copyrighted material, failing to mention the DMCA once in the lawsuit. The Safe Harbor clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, removes service providers from liability for any copyrighted material that users upload to their servers, specifically if the content provider removes material that a copyright holder insists is infringing. Youtube immediately removes material upon receipt of a takedown notice, typically without even ensuring that the entity which issued the notice is actually the copyright holder. Youtube is similarly protected by the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, which protects sites which do not induce others to commit copyright infringement. Rather, Youtube encourages users to produce their own works.

     The SaveNetRadio coalition is a response to the royalty increase in the March 2007 Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) ruling. The coalition consists of artists, labels, listeners, and webcasters that believe another solution must be created in order to prevent internet radio stations from shutting down. The CRB decision will harm millions of music listeners, performers who depend on the internet radio to increase their audience, and webcasters who make a living from streaming music online.
     SaveNetRadio exposes the unreal myths and harsh facts about the cost of webcasting. While the internet radio is the smallest medium within the radio business, it pays the most royalties. Broadcast radio and satellite radio are subject to small or no royalties at all. The predicted combined revenue for internet radio services is $73.6 million, but 58% of that revenue will be used for royalty payments. Internet radio is one of the most important sources for music listeners. About seven million Americans a days use internet radio. Although the popularity of internet radio has increased tremendously, it is still a small, growing industry. Most webcasters do not generate enough revenue to cover the royalties since they do not have enough sponsors or advertisements to sustain them.
     Another myth concerning royalty rates is that artists and record companies were not being fairly compensated for their work prior to the CRB decision. The reality is that if royalties are too high, internet radio will go out of business, and then performers definitely will not be paid for their work. The high royalties will not allow small or large webcasters to survive, and even if large webcasters can afford the royalties, it will not promote competition and diversity in the internet radio services. While the increase in royalties may seem negligible, tripling the per-song royalty rate adds up to an enormous royalty payment. Besides the per-usage rate, webcasters are also subject to a minimum fee per station and have no option to opt for a revenue-based royalty system.
     SaveNetRadio is an important topic in my paper. It demonstrates the outrage of the music community to the CRB decision. The myths and facts of the cost of webcasting clearly describe the toll that increased royalties will have on small and large webcasters. SaveNetRadio.org is an extremely useful and interesting source. I think it is an excellent way to bring music fans together to fight the unfairness in the royalty system for internet radio stations.

    Tim Westergren, founder and chief strategy officer of Pandora, spoke on behalf of the Digital Media Association (DiMa) at the hearing on “The Future of Radio.” His testimony first introduces Pandora and the Music Genome Project. He emphasizes that Pandora is unbiased in the song selection for its listeners. Through a completely democratic process, listeners can vote “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” if they like the song, and that respective song will gain or lose more exposure. Pandora plays songs from a wide range of artists with about 70% of the sound recordings belonging to artists not affiliated to major record labels. It equally reviews any CD that is delivered to them and selects songs solely based on their musical composition.
    Westergren’s statement focuses on the benefits of the internet radio technology. Internet radio offers more stations and diversity content than broadcast, satellite, and FM radio. Virtually any artist or song can be found on the internet. Westergren reports that in a study “Pandora listeners are three to five times more likely to have purchased music in the last 90 days than the average American.” He emphasizes that internet radio is the best way to promote artists and music.
    On the issue of royalty rates, Westergren highlights that internet radio has the smallest of all radio revenues yet it pays the highest royalties. The increased rates are not economically sustainable, and unless a new resolution is made with SoundExchange, Pandora and other internet radio companies will immediately shut down. Pandora and DiMa have supported the SaveNetRadio campaign, which has urged support for the Internet Radio Equality Act. Westergren provides words from listeners and musicians who are extremely grateful to internet radio. In his own words, Westergren states, “It is my hope, indeed the reason I started this company, that we are at the beginning of the development of a musicians’ middle class, as radio services like Pandora allow musicians to find a fan base and maintain a steady career making music, which is a real alternative to the major-label system that makes you an enormous star or leaves you unemployed.”
    Westergren’s statement is important for my paper, since my argument completely supports his ideas and beliefs. The internet radio is extremely beneficial to the public and I agree that it is the best way to promote an artist’s work. If the royalty rates are increased, this will put a halt to the promotion of cultural diversity. Although not all listeners end up purchasing CDs or songs, the word-of-mouth advertisement for performers is tremendous, this benefits them in the long run. Westergren’s ideas and beliefs are fair and justified. He is not completely against the payment of royalties, but he demands a fair standard to be used for the rate determination, which is what my paper will discuss.

    Pandora has become one of the nation’s most popular internet radio stations. It has about one million listeners daily and 40,000 new customers a day. Pandora has made it to the top ten most popular applications for Apple’s iphone. Listeners can create their own stations according to their musical tastes. All of Pandora’s success, however, may soon reach an end with the increasing royalty rates.
    Royalty fees are paid to a single agent SoundExchange, Inc. The organization represents performers and record companies, and it supports the higher rates on the basis that musicians deserve a larger fraction of internet radio profits. “Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses,” said Mike Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange. The organization also believes that internet radio has not done enough to profit from streaming music.
    Some musicians defend Pandora and other internet radio stations on the other hand. Webcasters argue that internet radio offers a larger range of music than traditional radio and also promotes independent musicians. While traditional radio does not pay royalties and satellite radio pay 6-7% of their revenue, webcasters must pay per song and per listener. With the new royalty decision doubling the per performance rates, Pandora and other webcasters may go out of business. Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, predicts that royalty fees will amount to $17 million this year, which is 70% of the projected revenue. “We’re funded by venture capital,” [Westergren] said, “They’re not going to chase a company whose business model has been broken. So if it doesn’t feel like it’s headed toward a solution, we’re done.”
    This newspaper article is important for my paper because it portrays the trememdous effect the new royalties will have on Pandora. Westergren repeatedly states that the company will go out of business, and this is important for my paper. Performers will not be paid more for their work if there is no internet radio station that will be in business to pay them. In order to ensure a fair royalty rate, the company must not be threatened to close down. My paper defends another model for determining the royalties and argues against the latest copyright ruling on the royalty rates. This article is important because it not only demonstrates the copyright ruling from Pandora's point of view but also from SoundExchange's perspective.

    Matt Nathanson is a songwriter, performer, and recording artist. He is also the most played artist on Pandora.com. In his testimony at the hearing on “Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms,” Nathanson emphasizes the importance of internet music and internet radio. Before iTunes, Amazon, and other internet music sources were available, only a handful of artists succeeded. Nowadays, with internet radio stations, such as Pandora and Yahoo!, people are exposed to a variety of music and different genres. Nathanson relates how his own success was contributed by his exposure on internet radio. Internet radio has given independent artists and labels an opportunity to be heard by the public. Customers buy from a much broader group of artists thanks to internet music.
     Nathanson also discusses the financial concerns behind the royalty debate. “When a song I write is played on broadcast, satellite or Internet radio, they pay me an amount which is reasonably related to their revenue. Higher revenue stations pay a bit more; smaller stations and services pay a bit less. But when a song that I perform is played, broadcast radio pays me nothing; satellite radio pays me a reasonable royalty that when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 6% of its revenue; but Internet radio services pay me and other artists a per-song fee that is unrelated to the revenue of the service, which when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 30 or 40 or 70 percent of their revenue or more.” Nathanson argues that it is wrong for the smallest industry to be paying the highest royalty rates. He reports that internet radio is the most important way for independent artists to be heard. He concludes his testimony asking that the royalties changes be made fair for internet radio and demanding that the board keep in mind the future generation of artists.
     This source provides another perspective of the royalty rate issue for my paper. Nathanson's musical career and success demonstrate the tremendous benefit that internet radio has for the public. His testimony is important for my paper because it is supporting evidence that the copyright ruling is unfair. Nathanson, a musician who receives royalty payments, completely supports Pandora's fight against the increasing royalty rates. His testimony makes a strong case for my paper since he opposes SoundExchange's argument that performers need to be paid more on the basis of fairness.

    On April 25, 2007, the House of Representatives presented the Internet Radio Equality Act with the purpose of nullifying the March 2, 2007, Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling on webcasting and royalty rates. The act proposed a new standard of determining royalties according to Section 801b of the Copyright Act. It also established a transition rule for commercial webcasters for 2006-2010, which offers a choice between paying $0.33 per hour of sound recording to a single listener or 7.5% of the annual revenues received by digital transmission of sound recordings. For noncommercial webcasters, the act proposed a payment of 150% of the royalty fee paid in 2004. The act also proposed a study to determine the competitiveness of the internet radio marketplace. Research is also being conducted to study the effects of the proposed rates on local programming, the diversity of programming, and the entry barriers into the internet radio market.
    The Internet Radio Equality Act is an important source for my paper. It demonstrates the efforts Pandora and other internet radio companies are making to fight the Copyright Royalty Board’s last ruling. It also argues that the standards for determining royalty rates should be the same as the ones proposed in the Copyright Act. This bill is important to argue the different sides of the royalty issue in my paper, since it offers the perspective of the internet radio companies. It also allows me to defend the point that there is a better model to determine the rates.

This book presents a guide to the resource acquisition, legal, and financial necessities of producing an independent film.  Every aspect of the planning and execution of the business side of filmmaking is discussed, including hypothetical situations based on the personal experience of the entertainment lawyers who co-authorized the book.  The book introduces the roles of producer and lawyer, then outlines the film development process through deal making, financing, hiring, licensing and distribution.

As is pertains to my project, this book provides valuable insight into the warranted concern that filmmakers have had with the 21st century dispute over Internet distribution rights.  In the case of Viacom v. Youtube, the exclusive rights per the 1976 Copyright Act for copyright owners to reproduce their works became the basis for allegations against YouTube for a count of direct copyright infringement.  The authors of this book advise filmmakers to negotiate with distributors on the basis that they "cannon distribute on the Net until there is adequate 'border protection' to prevent access outside licensed territories" (132).

Erickson, Gunnar, Harris Tulchin, Mark Halloran, and J. Gunnar Erickson. The Independent Film Producer's Survival Guide: A Business and Legal Sourcebook . New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 2005

This article covers the immediate response the YouTube had to the inital takedown request made to them on Oct 20, 2006 by the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC).

In relation to my project, JASRAC requested through DMCA takedown request procedures that YouTube remove nearly 30,000 unauthorized video files that were uploaded by YouTube users. This furthers my project research into the issue of copyright infringement as it pertains to internet video-sharing service.

 Tanzil, Sarah. "YouTube Deletes 30,000 Files After a Copyright Complaint." The New York Times 21 Oct. 2006: Technology.

The rights to intellectual property and the revenue thereof can make or break an entrepreneurial business.  This book covers the gambit of trade secrets that tech-savvy entrepreneurs may need to protect intellectual property in the dynamic arena of copyright law, licensing, patenting, and trademark acquisition.  The book makes examples of the infringement issues faced by international business icons such as Microsoft and Amazon.com.

As it pertains to my project, the book also goes over the provisions for statutory versus actual damages in the 1976 Copyright Act (115).  These provisions are under review in the Viacom v. YouTube case.

Guide, Gilbert. The Entrepreneur's Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets & Licensing . New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2004

This book acts as a guide for understanding the nuances of basic business law. Topics discussed include hypothetical legal pitfalls and fundamental solutions within the legal domain. Issues reviewd in the book range from labor law and contract negotioation to e-commerce and intellectual property. Each chapter includes a Brain Teaser section which allows the readers to test their knowledge of real-world applications and Business Law, including Curry's analysis of current cases.

Pertaining to my project, Curry's answer to whether or not Google should be liable to uploads that link to copyrighted materials is applicalbe (230).

Curry, Ellen. MBA Fundamentals Business Law (Kaplan MBA Fundamentals) . New York: Kaplan Publishing, 2007

The development of internet communities, the phenomenon of file-sharing, chat room hosting, and surfing are all aspects of cyberspace social behaviors that have coalesced to create a thriving social organism, or ecology.  In the book, Huberman makes a scientific observation of this phenomenon as statistically goverened patterns. While discussing the application of such physics concepts as Brownian motion and Zipf's Law, Huberman researches the mechanics of internet social behaviors, and the value of such findings to the future development of internet busines models and application architecture.

In relation to my project, and the accusations from Viacom, YouTube is being accused of actually inducing illegal behavior.  Huberman looks at various problematic features of file-sharing networks, and their contribution to the dilemma of creating user-friendly file-sharing functions at the risk of creating illegally replicated material (69).

Huberman, Bernardo A. The Laws of the Web: Patterns in the Ecology of Information . Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001

This book goes over the trends in multimedia that are pushing multimedia services into unprecidented technological formats. There is an in-depth analysis of the multimedia security technologies applied to digital data as prevention of copyright abuse or violation. These various copyright protection techniques inlude digital watermarking, steganography, fingerprinting and data hiding among others.

For the purpose of my project, the book discusses how the ease of communication of digital data is making it a globally accessible commodity. This is why positive internet video sharing service and televisions industry partnerships are being fostered. There is a growing demographic of interenet file-sharing service users who can be reached with multimedia entertainment. The future of these internet hosting / television industry busines partnerships is being forged out of the new technologies in digital data sharing.

Also of interest for my project is that the book also addresses the matter at the root of the uneasiness and friction between multimedia industries like the television companies and the internet video-sharing environment in general. That problem is arising from the polarized interests of intellectual rights owners and interntet end-users seeking free access to information.--"...The development of digital technologies permitting transmission of digital data over the internet has raised questions about how these rights apply in the new environment.  How can digital intellectual property be made publicly available while guaranteeing ownership of the intellectual rights by the rights-holder and free access to information by the user?" (3).

• Lu,Chun-Shien. Multimedia Security: Steganography and Digital Watermarking Techniques for Protection of Intellectual Property. Hersey: Idea Group Inc., 2005

    Established in December 1997, the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. ARIN is one of five (5) RIRs.

    The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is a regional Internet registry that oversees Internet number registration in the Americas. According to the website, ARIN is concerned with “ Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, A nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.”

    ARIN provides information on registration services, various policies, meetings, membership and information on the other regional Internet registries. Current and annual reports can be found archived in ARIN’s website. Registration Services pertain to the technical coordination and management of Internet number resources. Organization Services pertain to interaction between ARIN members and stakeholders and ARIN. Policy Development Services facilitate the development of policy for the technical coordination and management of Internet number resources in the ARIN region.

Tim Wu talks with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation about the possible ways presidential candidates might attempt to reach younger voters in the 2008 election. Wu speculates about candidates battling in virtual worlds (which may prove more "exciting" than real-life rallies, since you can actually blow things up). He talks about the increasing participation in virtual worlds like Second Life, but doesn't really contextualize the still relatively small virtual world population. Wu also speculates that it might become more acceptable for serious politicians to make cameo appearances on TV shows as a way of advertising their brand, i.e. themselves. Although he mentions Clinton, it might be useful to think about Gore's career since he left the White House. Appearances on Saturday Night Live and most recently the Oscars with his film An Inconvenient Truth have turned him into Hollywood's golden boy without detracting from (and if anything, increasing) his political clout. Will candidates still in office be able to garner popularity in this way - without worrying about their reputations as "serious" presidential candidates?

This clip is also useful because it imagines the possibilities for increased voter participation throughout the political process.

This Pew Research Center Report states that twice as many Americans cited the internet as their primary source of political news and information for the 2006 midterm elections as opposed to the 2002 midterm election. One of the most useful tables in this report shows the percentages alloted to television, newspapers, radio, internet and magazines from 1992 to 2006, outlining the increasing presence of the internet while noting it still falls behind TV, newspapers and radio as a primary information source in 2006. 31% of Americans (totaling more than 60 million people) say they were online during the campaign season "gathering information and exchanging views via email" and the report calls this group "campaign internet users."

71% of campaign internet users cited convenience as a major reason they get political news online. On one hand, the highest percentage of campaign internet users are younger adults who seem to be the most flexible and eager adopters of new technology and internet activism. On the other hand, I wonder if the fundamental importance of convenience could (does) undermine the ability of cyber-activity to translate into voter turnout?

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?

This blog covers "how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa," as well as looking at the effects of voter-generated content, social networking sites etc. For example, the attention paid to the number of friends a particular candidate has on a site like myspace is particularly interesting when thinking about the Howard Dean campaign and its inability to translate as an e-candidate to a real-time political contender. The contributers seem to represent a fairly broad political spectrum, and are ostensibly against "partisan" arguments. The bloggers include the Internet director of Dean's 2004 campaign and the e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004.

This is my primary source of information for researching the ongoing efforts of the hopeful presidential nominees for the 2008 election. In particular, I'm curious to compare John Edwards' efforts to those of Howard Dean and speculate a bit on whether or not popular e-candidates have a shot at competing against campaign giants (with massive campaign contributions) like Obama, Clinton, Guiliani and McCain.

This blog covers "how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa," as well as looking at the effects of voter-generated content, social networking sites etc. For example, the attention paid to the number of friends a particular candidate has on a site like myspace is particularly interesting when thinking about the Howard Dean campaign and its inability to translate as an e-candidate to a real-time political contender. The contributers seem to represent a fairly broad political spectrum, and are ostensibly against "partisan" arguments. The bloggers include the Internet director of Dean's 2004 campaign and the e-campaign director for Bush-Cheney 2004.

Ch. 1: “Electronic Political Discussion”

This chapter offers an overview of various online communications, including electronic email lists, Usenet and blogs. Davis addresses the question of whether or not online discussions make any difference in political processes, institutions or societal behavior and ultimately decides that the prophesized utopia of direct democracy has not yet been achieved. The obstacles facing such restructuring include: inequality in the levels of accessibility and the fragmented nature of electronic political discussion. Even the more tempered notion of deliberative democracy faces hurdles - most notably human reliance on technological solutions.

This chapter is a helpful summary of current online discussion forums and briefly pulls apart the kind of Trippi-esque claims of revolution. I'm going to utilize the rest of this book in order to examine the broad claims of internet revolution which, in the case of much writing about the internet, seem devoid of factors like accessibility.

This chapter analyzes five cases of online politics, including the use of the internet by Bush and McCain in 2000, the phenomenon moveon.org, Web White and Blue and the “instant response meter” developed by Speakout.com. The moveon.org case study discusses the evolution of the wildly successful organization which proved to have a mobilizing capacity beyond all expectation. It summarizes its strategy of providing a voice for those unheard during the Clinton scandal as well as using the Internet to broaden the early donor pool. The article mentions in the last few sentences that there is no conservative counterpart to the MoveOn model, perhaps because “grassroots action works better in opposition – and the conservatives are in power.” I think this is a valid point and worth examining in relation to the Democratic takeover in the midterm elections although at the moment it seems too early for a conservative backlash.

As the chapter points out, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd (the founders of MoveOn) are not political candidates. They (in the vein of many environmentalists or human rights organizations responding to a specific problem) started their site/online petition as a reaction to the Clinton impeachment issue and grew to become a kind of brand of endorsement for selected democratic candidates. Also, they bundle donor choices to make sizable contributions to a slate of candidates. Would any one candidate be able to mobilize the kind of broad support this portal of the people harnessed?

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.

This article talks about 'bemes'--memes spread through blogs--as being the new way that information is spread and propogated.  The author considers the definition of meme to be a piece of cultural information that spreads by word of mouth and eventually becomes common knowledge. By taking advantage of the network effect, particularly the link-heavy nature of blogs, a meme can become widespread in very short period of time. Bemes are essentially memes, but faster.  Bemes are engineered to use new media to the greatest extent and be as catchy as possible.  Also mentioned are 'bemerz', the people who create bemes. Due to the popularity of these bemes, the bemerz themselves become cultural icons. The end result is that people can create and spread ideas deliberately and quickly.

 The idea of beme doesn't really seem any different than an internet meme, although the spread of the term after being mentioned on ABC News may very well validate the argument. The point of the article is very clear, although with respect to examples it seems sparse.  The comments on the blog post serve to fill in the gaps as well as challenge the idea. As one reader says, "Nice try, though, trying to make up your own beme by creating the word itself."

Heylighen begins his examination of memes by comparing them with genetics.  Genetics is generally an apt metaphor for memetics. Memes are more or less "copied" from one person to another, sometimes varying from the original. Different memes are more or less consistent, infective, or different from majority or prior notions. However, there are key differences. Memes can be transmitted between any two people, rather than parent-to-child.  Memes also replicate much more quickly, and thus can spread throughout a network almost instantly.

The next part of the article deals with meme replication on the internet. The key parts of such information transmission are the internet's high copy-fidelity (digitization allows for lossless transfer), high fecundity (computers can produce a large volume of copies quickly), and greater longevity (digital information can be stored indefinitely). Consequently, the internet allows greater and more efficient replication of memes.  Real-world boundaries are also pushed aside, allowing diffusion to occur from multiple sources and geographical locations outward rather than from a single source outward and potentially limited by physical and linguistic boundaries. Due to the nature of the internet, permanently copying information is not always necessary, but rather linking to information (with the assumption that it will always exist at that location) is more efficient. This suggests that the number of incoming links to something on the web is important for measuring its spread.

The article also discusses how memes can compete with each other or work together, similar to genes. When memes compete, the idea is that the more popular one will win out.  As it pertains to the web, the more linked site will draw more new viewers who will then also link it, making it even more popular.  For a global network, this means that there would likely be a shared ideology eventually.

This article effectively links the nature of memes and genes. It has detailed information on the properties of memes and how they apply to what gets spread across the internet. What this article is lacking is in examples that support the emergence of a global brain. The theory behind it is well-explained, but the external factors that make things more popular or less popular among certain subsets of society are not mentioned.

This article analyzes how the internet works in terms of memetics. In this way of viewing things, each user and website is a different agent or node in the network: not aware of the underlying structure of the network, but instead only concerned with its immediate links within that network.  Marshall takes a bottom-up approach and applies memetics to each level.  At the operational level, the internet is a series of linked memes through which information and messages are routed through agents that have a specific purpose but do not know the intentions of the central controller.  At the service level, agent are interfaces designed to achieve certain goals through interacting with other agents.  In the example Marshall gives, a search engine for online stores has a goal of interfacing with other agents (the online stores) and processing the information.  At the user level, the internet memeplex is able to transmit information quickly and ignore real-world boundaries. Thus users are able to indicate what information they want to receive, and then get it through the network. Marshall concludes that the memetic support system embedded in the internet make it more efficient and allows each additional layer to perform more useful and complex operations efficiently.

Although the aim of this paper is sound, the connection between each level is not discussed in any amount of detail. The clearest points are the discussion on virtual communities and general overview of how the internet can operate as a series of memeplexes.

In order to find this case on Findlaw, just search for it using "J.S. vs...." You can then create a free account. The link to the specific case is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/pennsylvaniastatecases/supreme/j-111-2001mo.pdf. 

   This case deals with a middle school student who created a Website with defamatory statements about one of his teachers and his school principle. The site, “Teacher Sux,” was created on his home computer but was accessed at school. When it was discovered, it created a stir at school and the teacher he had mentioned, Ms. Fulmer, suffered from stress-related illnesses. The following summer, the school board expelled the student from school for the Website. The student’s parents sued the school board for their decision. The case made it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the Website did in fact cause “a material and substantial disruption of the school environment,” making it not protected under the 1^st amendment (even though the speech did not constitute a “true threat”). Because the Website affected the school environment, it did not matter that the student had created it at home.

   I am interested in how this precedent-setting case affects students’ postings on social networking sites of today, like Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Although these are log-in only websites, any one may gain access to them and may do so in a school environment. I wonder then if a student has been expelled for comments made on one of these social networking sites. This case brings to the forefront the issues of privacy and rights when it comes to personal postings on the internet, something that is all the more prevalent with the ubiquity of social networking sites in young people. The case illustrates the unique circumstances of a school environment and shows that the 1st amendment is limited in that space (going all the way back to the "Tinker" case which can also be found on FindLaw). What students put on their Facebook profiles or their friend’s wall can affect their standing at their university if it causes a “material and substantial disruption of the school environment” or portrays the student doing illegal activities. These Websites offer students a unique opportunity for self-expression and identity formation, but there is also the danger in the lack of privacy of internet postings.

    In chapter 8 of Lessig’s book, called “Transformers,” Lessig tells the story of Alex Alben and his creation of a retrospective CD-ROM based on the career of Clint Eastwood. He talks about the trouble the development team went through to get permission from every single actor that had appeared in the that they were going to use. This is just a small part of the chapter, but it helps explain why partly there are numerous mashups and remixes out there without permission: It’s just too hard. Lessig tells a story where Alben’s team tracked down all the actors that had appeared, called them, and then paid them $600. Besides being time consuming, the process seems very cost prohibitive, which explains why there are such a large number of copyright infringing works on sites like YouTube and online.

    This is a particularly great article for a number of reasons; however, those reasons will be discussed after a brief discussion of its contents. This piece, by regular contributor Bob Garfield, gives an overview of the purpose of YouTube and what it is, video advertising (in all its forms), and the recent purchase of YouTube by Google, inc.

It talks about, among various other things, the 1.65 billion paid for it in Google stock, the outrageous number of 65,000 (which is the number of videos uploaded everyday onto YouTube), and the reasoning why YouTube has such popular viral videos. The last statement was proved in the article by this quote:

“It’s said that if you put a million monkeys at a million typewriters, eventually you will get the works of William Shakespeare. When you put together a million humans, a million camcorders, and a million computers, what you get is YouTube.”

This article would be superb to cite in a piece on YouTube, like I previously stated, numerous reasons. For starters, the article gives and overview of YouTube for those not formerly acquainted with the site. This is a great article, since it explains to reader how the entire process works. It would also shed some light on the culture of the site and the community that worships it. The article at about halfway through switches gears and begins to talk about the ramifications that YouTube is having in the Advertising industry, the recent decline of mass advertising, and the fall of TV Commercials. This would fit into an essay well because I believe it will certainly add depth to my explanation of the new culture that is arising in our society, the new digital culture, one of Tivo, viral video, and iTunes. All together, this article would be indispensable for any essay on remix culture. It’s a great read, that’s chalk full of good information, quotes, and anecdotes that would definitely spice up any essay about YouTube or other remix sites.

    This a great video that can be used as a counter argument for anyone that say’s online video is completely killing companies marketing and advertising strategies. The article chronicles the story of Chevrolet, and their foray into marketing involving online consumer generated works. Thinking they could profit on the recent online explosion, Chevrolet, in a bold move, asked web users to make their own video advertisements for their bestselling SUV, the Tahoe. While Chevrolet supplied the video, and music, users could mix and match them, and add their own captions. While most of the video’s created touted the superiority of the Tahoe, others became sarcastic narrations on global warming, masculinity, and even war in Iraq. Although it was a success overall in the eyes of Chevrolet, it can be argued that because of the appeal of the attack ad’s over the regular advertisements online on sites like YouTube, the negative commercials lampooning the automobile company were much more widely viewed. But, as I said, one could only argue, and not sustain, that this actually supports the fact that ways to advertise to consumers are being lost. Before this claim is made, an individual must realize certain facts.

    First, the company, Chevrolet, is known for selling large, generally fuel inefficient vehicles, which have angered some more eco-friendly consumers. Second, one must remember that many other companies have succeeded where Chevrolet has failed. For example, Burger King and Converse, both nationally recognized chains, have previously launched online “mashup” campaigns. The difference, however, was simply the type of users responding to the company’s promotion, and the products of the company itself. In contrast to what happened to Chevrolet’s dealings with “mashups”, Converse was actually so successful with their endeavor, that numerous of the submissions were actually brought onto national television and later went on to receive critical acclaim.     

    This is a great article for any individual researching the idea of “mashups” and user generated content being used by corporations. It shows what can go right, what go wrong, and what can flat out backfire when users are involved in advertising of a product.

The main purpose of this article would be to introduce the concept of the “mashup” to the reader. Written as a somewhat filler piece for the March 6^th’s Newsweek, it’s short, sweet, and to the point. The author intends to write to a slightly older audience, and begins his article with this sentence: “Unless you're a geek, obsessed with DJs or under the age of 35, chances are you've never heard the word ‘mashup.’” This shows that the piece is actually perfect for my aforementioned plan of introducing the concept of “mashups” to anyone not acquainted. A great part of this article is that it actually breaks “mashups” into the three categories that it can be created within: Video, music, and “web apps.” Although the third category of “web apps” is great, (and a big, meaningful part of the internet and the Web 2.0 movement) I don’t believe that it would have much use in an essay about more artistic “mashups” and the new electronic remix culture.

    In any case, like previously stated, the article gives great examples of creative “mashups” such as DJ Dangermouse’s "The Grey Album," which took the lyrics from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" and mashed them with the Beatles' "White Album,” a plethora of Brokeback Mountain parodies (which are well within the bounds of fair use), and a “mashup” of Tom Cruise's appearance on "Oprah" where he confessed his love for Katie Holmes, juxtaposed against Oprah’s with her scolding of the author James Frey. As far as articles on internet sensations go, with many examples, and a sufficient definition, this piece is some of the best information an individual can find on the ever changing pop culture craze that is the “mashup.”

            This case was particularly important, and could be considered landmark event in the music industry; because of the decision passed down by the Supreme Court, there was dealt a huge blow to the art of sampling in hip hop and rap music. The case involved  Gilbert O'Sullivan, a singer/songwriter, who was associated with Grand Upright Music, bringing suit against Marcel Hall and Warner Brothers, also known as rapper Biz Markie, who was signed the Warner Brothers Records label. The suit was brought because Hall had, without explicit permission, sampled three words (Alone, again and naturally, in that order) and a portion of the harmony from the song "Alone Again (Naturally)" by O'Sullivan, for use in his third album, I Need A Haircut. The presiding Judge, Kevin Thomas Duffy, ruled against Mr. Hall, and Warner Brothers, stating not only did the artist and label break the seventh commandment, but copyright law as well. In his memorandum, Duffy states:

"it is clear that the defendants knew that they were violating the plaintiff's rights as well as the rights of others. Their only aim was to sell thousands upon thousands of records. This callous disregard for the law and for the rights of others requires not only the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff but also sterner measures."

            This case is supremely important to anyone investigating mashups or remix culture as a whole. This case solely changed the face of the hip hop and rap industries, and affected future decisions about copyright infringement.

This particular section of U.S. Copyright law defines the law regarding internet services that use their servers to host unregulated user data. This section is supremely important since it states: “…A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief…” on account of storage and hosting of infringing copyrighted documents uploaded by users. This means that any site, that hosts data by users is not responsible for said data; a statement that is seemingly at ends with the Grokster decision, which stated file sharing services that host infringing content are illegal.

            Relating this back to YouTube and remix culture, if and/or when a copyright holder informs YouTube of infringing content, such as unapproved mashups, remixes, or flat out illegal copies, the only course of action YouTube has to follow to avoid legal disputes is a removal said files. This is how the numerous file hosting sites out there, like YouTube, Revver, MySpace, Google.Video, BitTorrent, and many others, are still functioning and not completely bankrupt from lawsuits. However, since the acquisition of YouTube by Google and it’s deep, deep pockets, many copyright owners and lawyers have been metaphorically “licking their chops” at the chance to win any case that will topple the viral video giant.

            This section of legislation is important and indispensable for anyone doing research on data hosting websites such as YouTube or the others that were stated in the previous paragraph. 

This is a great piece because it helps many individuals who do not know much about copyright law to become informed, of what is legal, what isn’t, why there’s so much fuss about YouTube, and what they can do to prevent illegal material from popping up on the site. It begins with “Ron” informing the viewer about a recent suit brought against the site, by Robert Tur, a helicopter cameraman who has taken numerous famous video clips, such as the OJ Simpson chase, and the LAPD police beatings. Mr. Tur feels that YouTube is purposely profiting by the infringement of illegal videos because of advertisements. However, our lawyer friend, Ron, states YouTube is not violating the DMCA because there is no way to see if the loads and loads of copyrighted material is drawing in ad revenue, or if the loads and loads non-copyrighted material is. He even presents what’s good for YouTube, and what’s bad for YouTube. He then states that in his lawyer opinion, that he believes Tur will lose.

             In the ten minute video, Ron also mentions many other copyright related subjects, such as Fair use, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Betamax case, Napster, Grokster, and others. This is a great source because it tries to help YouTubers avoid copyright infractions by offering advice, (though not legal advice, as the beginning of the video starts off with “The opinions in this video are the authors alone, and do not constitute legal advice.”) so that they can keep YouTube legal and running. In an essay about remix culture, this piece would serve as a devil’s advocate of sorts, showing that YouTube could possibly still survive without its popular, but illegal videos. In my opinion, however, this is probably not as possible as “Ron” puts it, but it’s a unique view nonetheless.

    This article, by online Newsweek contributor Brad Stone, discusses what YouTube represents in the online community. It begins by offering a point, saying “what if YouTube is the Napster of video?” Stone then refutes it by giving specific examples. He states that YouTube is cooperating with copyright holders much more than expected, and is taking down material quickly and but not very efficiently. To combat this problem, YouTube is apparently working with other companies to create a video reconition program that will be able to identify copyrighted material and remove it.

            As you might already be thinking, this is bad for remix culture that wants a large audience such as the viewers of YouTube. It not only slows the flow of creative and derivative works dramatically, but forces creators, who want to use YouTube as a medium, to use works that are royalty free, in the public domain, or ask for permission for use (which almost is never granted).

            This piece does not only give a good explanation of what YouTube is, and where it has come from, but shed’s light on a possible future for the site. If what Mr. Stone predicts comes to fruition, it would mean a entire medium for copyright infringing works would be gone; whether this is a good, or bad thing for society, is up for interpretation.

    To those not acquainted, the Grokster case was the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to make most p2p file sharing applications illegal. The court reached this decision after it reviewed an appeal of another appeal that went from a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2003, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the previous decision was upheld. When relating special court cases to sites online today, an individual may spring to the conclusion that the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case would provide the answer easily. This was the case that prevented VCR manufacturers from having liability and suit brought against them for contributory infringement when users created copies. While the court in the Betamax case famously stated that VCR’s were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," the decision in the Grokster case stated that even if something has the ability for those noninfringing uses, if no action is taken to prevent infringement of copyright law, it may be guilty of contributory infringement.

            How does this relate to the sites and programs used today? Do the YouTubes and BitTorrents have to fear the wrath of possible copyright infringement? The Answer is no, they do not; but, there is a caveat, they must follow the rules of Section 512 of U.S. Copyright law and remove infringing work. This case undoubtedly very significant when approaching and concerning intellectual property theft and property theft in the digital age.

    Before we get into the specifics of this article, it’s good to observe who wrote the it: Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney with the now almost infamous group: the EFF or Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF is a San Francisco-based nonprofit group who try to protect users, the freedom of expression, creativity and innovation on the internet. While on a less than reputable site than others like Newsweek, Time, or other online journals, this piece is just as, or more so compelling and revealing about the business that is YouTube.

    the article itself is split up into 4 sections, the first called: “Why YouTube?” In this section, Von Lohmann explains that the popularity of YouTube has been greater than it’s competitors, citing mostly its ease of use. The second section is “Copyright Issues,” in this section he champions YouTube for being very willing to help abide by copyright, and states that because of this, it is a attractive business partner for advertising. The third section talks about the “Safe Harbor” of section 512 of U.S. copyright law, and how YouTube benefits from it. The last section is aptly named “Problems Ahead?” Like most writers, Von Lohmann is cautious about the future of YouTube and its ability to stay running. He states that while as of right now, while some advertisers are very willing to use the site, others do not because of certain reasons regarding copyright, and advertisement opportunities and effectiveness.

            All in all, this is the perfect article for any individual interested in the business behind YouTube.com. Von Lohmann articulately describes the opportunities facing YouTube, potential investors, and advertisers with the new medium. With this piece in mind, anyone can accurately state what YouTube means from an economic view.

            This case is an appeal by Napster of an injunction that does not require the plaintiffs to provide any individual file names of potentially infringing works available on the Napster system. The orders require the plaintiff to provide notice to Napster of copyrighted works by providing the title and artist name for each work. When given a list of copyrighted recordings, Napster would have three days to search all files on its system and prevent the transmitting or distribution of those files. Plaintiffs had sent in notices of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works without the corresponding file names in the Napster system. Napster complained that the plaintiffs did not provide variants in song and artist name and could mix complying items in the same notice as non-complying items because Napster could not check in the time allowed by the injunction. The consequence was that Napster would end up blocking many authorized files.  The arguments were that the DMCA set limitations on the judicial power of ISPs such as Napster, did not assess the "staple article of commerce" doctrine set forth in Sony, and that Napster has commercially significant non-infringing uses but is forced to block sharing of files even though the names do not always correspond with the contents of those files.

            This case brings up some important points in my research about why copyright holders are finding it beneficial in some cases to waive some of their copyright in order to use new technologies such as MP3 blogs to promote music, while they continue to fight similar technology such as peer-to-peer services. Any discussion of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) liability is important because it affects how people can make blogs and share new things over the internet. There are several ISPs which allow anyone to create a blog from them, and these businesses are based on previous cases such as the Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, Inc case where liability of technology providers is limited if they do not have specific knowledge of infringing uses of the technology. It also shows how even though a company can send take down notices, it is still difficult and costly to actually take a case to court and win it, no matter how clear cut it originally seems.

            This essay describes what an MP3 blog is, and how record labels want to capitalize on the promotion that they provide while fighting file sharing at the same time. The essay discusses the types of copyright infringement and fair use and how they apply to MP3 blogs, as well as the factors that cause the court to view MP3 blogs more favorably than peer-to-peer networks. It discusses law suits against Napster and also by the RIAA against peer-to-peer users.  The article explains what establishes liability for infringing use, and the different expansions of the Copyright Act which have been brought by copyright owners in addressing new technologies. It then discusses some of these acts and gives some examples of violators. The next section explains the defense used when copyright owners bring suits, which is fair use, and it lists and describes the four factors in deciding fair use on a case by case basis.

            This essay incorporates basically every aspect of my research into why copyright holders are willing to waive certain copyright in cases such as MP3 blogs, while they continue to fight against much of new technology such as peer-to-peer services. It describes what MP3 blogs are and how they are used and different sites that can link to the unauthorized music.  It shows what the copyright holder needs to look for in order to bring a suit against infringing users, and also explains how the user of the work can try to use fair use as a defense.

            This article is written by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA as a response to a speech by Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in which Shapiro stated that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. Sherman says that statement is wrong and misleading. Shapiro says that legal downloading from record companies and legitimate online music companies is fine but there is a problem with unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, and sites Title 17 of the United States Code. Sherman writes that the fair use argument employed by Shapiro makes falsely seem as if copyright owners are against fair use, and that the fair use claim is unsupported when it comes to unauthorized use. Sherman argues against Shapiro's claim that downloading is different from taking a tangible property by writing that both owners have been deprived of something of value. Sherman refutes Shapiro's use of the first amendment and also says that companies are in fact aggressively pursuing a more flexible business model that does take advantage of new technology. Shapiro writes that the industry using technology and the internet is beside the point and that the real issue in what Shapiro is saying is that "digital stealing isn't really stealing" and the last thing we need is more polarizing rhetoric.

            For my research on why copyright holders are willing to waive copyright in some instances such as MP3 blogs because the new technology has benefits in promotion, this article is a firm example of the view from the record labels about copyright law and internet uses. It is written by the president of the RIAA, Cary Sherman and gives an argument in favor of strong copyright law, and a rebuttal to a speech by the Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in favor of weaker copyright law. It provides the viewpoint of the music industry about downloading, but it is interesting in that it does not mention anything about record companies such as Warner who at times chose to solicit certain independent blogs and will send the bloggers music with the hope that the blog will help promote the record label's artist for free.

            This is a speech given by Gary Shapiro, the President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association about growing tension between copyright owners and new technology. Shapiro speaks about how new reproduction technology and transmission technology has increased the fears of the music and motion picture industries. He draws parallels to new technology in the past such as the VCR, and CD and cassette recording. Today with mass availability of copies of music and movies, the content community has used congress, courts, and the media to challenge new technologies. Shapiro says that he believes that hardware and software companies have an interest in working together to see more products,  and that they can misuse source protection and DVD encryption to sell more products while limiting new technologies. Shapiro says that lawsuits have shut down file -sharing services, threaten peer-to-peer networks, challegenged as illegal devices which allow consumers to skip commercials, and has subpoenaed ISPs to identify downloading subscribers. Congress has introduced legislation that will require technology to be shaped by a government-mandated copy protection system. Shapiro comments on the language used by Hollywood and the music industry using words like "piracy" and "stealing" to describe downloading. Shapiro asserts that downloading is neither illegal nor immoral. He says that downloading is not taking away a copy of the product from someone, and in some cases helps promotion. His principles for policymakers to follow ask that a very high amount of evidence be found before restricting technology.

            For my research on MP3 blogs and why copyright holders are willing to waive some of their copyrights and allow the blogs to post their music this speech shows a view which is far to the fair-use and weak copyright law. It is clear support for allowing the new technologies and the internet to be created and exist, and for there to be significant evidence of a negative effect on the copyright holder before the technology is restricted. The key line by Shapiro for my project is when he submits that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. He sites fair use as being given on a case by case basis and that in many cases of downloading the use has "been shown to be neutral or beneficial to the copyright owners, and have either been tolerated or accepted as fair use." He also discusses how downloading can even lead to further sales, when people buy the whole CD from the song he or she heard on the internet.

As Alfred Yen, professor of law at the Boston College Law School, states in his introduction, this article "studies the construction of third party copyright liability in light of the recent Supreme Court case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.” The article is broken up into five sections: the first describes the doctrines that governed third party liability before Grokster, the second uses “fault and strict liability to expose the theoretical and practical tradeoffs implicit I these differing constructions, the third analyzes the case itself, the fourth describes the implications of the decision and “sets forth the general contours of an improved, post-Grokster­ construction of third party copyright liability, and the fifth gives some thought to the future of this subject matter.

The Grokster case is the latest in a series of cases where an internet service provider has been prosecuted for the actions of its users. Yet, even with this new decision in the books, little progress has been made to determine who is really the most responsible for infringement or how to hold them adequately responsible. Yen writes that “third part copyright liability benefits society by encouraging individuals to stop others from infringing, but those benefits come at a price… third party copyright liability suppresses non-infringing as well as infringing behavior.” Overall, this paradox illustrates the biggest deficit of internet copyright law: the inability to find the balance between, in Yen’s words, “desirable and undesirable consequences” of new technology. At this point in time, there seems to be no obvious strategy for regulating the internet without stifling future innovation and creation.

This article points out that although Grokster “gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to straighten out the law of third party copyright liability” little to no progress was actually made in interpreting pre-Grokster doctrines of third party copyright liability. Instead of “choosing between” existing “differing interpretations” of the law, Yen writes that the court “adopted a dormant theory of third party copyright liability, inducement.” Overall, Yen’s article shows that “inducement give courts a new tool for holding culpable defendants liable which reducing the risk of undesirable side effects.” Yen describes the Grokster decision as being “not a landmark, so much as a milestone, ratifying a continuing détente between those who build on the Internet and those in a position to regulate the builders.” This decision has also turned the focus of internet gate keeping to controlling software and PC uses ability to run that software rather than the ability to control the entire network.

Whether or not one agrees with the merit of the new inducement doctrine, this article is a comprehensive look at an area of copyright law that is important and continuing to quickly evolve. The story of these laws will continue to change drastically in the years to come, but this is a useful, informative and through-provoking look at the situation thus far.

Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is called “Limitations on liability relating to material online.” It specifically outlines what an online service provider (OSP) can be held responsible for and the times when they are exempt for responsibility. 512 provides copyright holders the right to ask OSPs to remove material that appears on their sites or in their programs if it is an infringement of copyright. However, a service provider is not liable for “monetary relief” or for “injunction or other equitable relief” if “the service provider does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing” and upon obtaining such knowledge “responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.”

In other words, a service provider is, in many cases, not liable for the content posted by its users, but must act swiftly to remove the infringing material from its site or service once it is notified of the infringement. Basically, if the OSPs comply promptly and effectively with copyright holders’ take down requests then they are protected by a “safe harbor” provision. According to reference.com the definition of a “safe harbor” is “a provision of a statute or a regulation that reduces or eliminates a party's liability under the law, on the condition that the party performed its actions in good faith.”

Therefore, this section of the DMCA is particularly important in determining secondary liability. A safe harbor can only be created if the site or service follows proper protocol and has been cleared of primary liability in the first place. Napster was held liable for the content being uploaded by its users because it provided a centralized server through which all information had to be passed, and thus was not granted a safe harbor.

YouTube is currently being protected by 512 because of its compliance with any and all take down notices it receives. YouTube's safe-harbor status is also helped by the fact that it has partnered itself with big, copyright-holding companies. Of course, if YouTube wasn't also complying with the takedown notices being issued by copyright holders in the first place, these partnerships wouldn't matter - or at least we’d like to think it wouldn't... The business possibilities for YouTube may almost be enough to outweigh the law, if they get the right business partners on their side.

512 is an important provision because it allows sites and services with substantial non-infringing uses to function with the possible existence of infringing material in exchange for removing that infringing material as quickly as possible. A no-tolerance infringement policy seems to be outside the scope of available online practices, therefore 512 allows services to exist with the understanding that there is inherent infringement on the internet.

This article is written by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit interest group that “seeks to promote free expression, privacy, and individual liberty on the open, decentralized internet.” This document “outlines the limits on the scope of secondary copyright liability,” looking at the Grokster decision, the landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), and patent law precedents relating to inducement liability. The goal of this investigation is to make sure that "secondary liability for copyright infringement does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having lawful promise.’” The Grokster case and the Sony decision can obviously be looked at be looked at individually, but this article does a nice job of synthesizing the information and explaining how they impact each other.

The article focuses on the new implications of the “inducement test,” what repercussions the situation has for the Sony rule and what this all means for vicarious liability. The article focuses on one key difference in clarification between the Grokster and Sony decisions. The language in the Grokster decisions "suggests that the Sony test focuses on 'substantial' non-infringing uses, not 'commercially significant' non-infringing uses." With Grokster, the emphasis was certainly placed on the commerical uses of the site. Monetary gains became one of the most significant factors of the case, not just ethical or legal implications. Certainly the internet is just as much a business as any other commerical frontier in the world, but more and more - especially illustrated with the Grokster decision - financial viability is the determining legal decision making. For example, today YouTube is currently seen as protected by the safe harbor provison, although some of the content being posted on YouTube today was possibly (or probably) also availible on Grokster. YouTube has been able to position itself not only in a safe harbor in a legal sense, but also in a financial sense by teaming up with companies who own many of the copyrighted works that are being infringed.

Of course the Sony case was also motivated by money, but more than ever before the current world of the web and the sites that are allowed to function within its borders are completely a function of their monetary potential for copyright holders. Grokster was taken to court because it posed a threat to the financial success of copyright holders. YouTube poses a similar threat as well, but thus far has been able to keep in partnership with the people who would be taking them to court in the first place.

In this article, the Boston Globe reporter talks to several bloggers and discusses what motivates audiobloggers otherwise known as MP3 bloggers to create sites and post songs. In these blogs, the author finds a song he or she wants to share, and posts it online as an MP3 file along with a commentary or review about the song so that readers can learn about the band and download and listen to the song if they choose. Bloggers will do this for free, as one blogger says "Selfishly, I get validation that people like my music taste... But I want people to find new music that they love." The music industry tends to leave blogs alone because they promote artists for free and are capable of creating "buzz" for an unknown artists and quickly establishing them among a loyal fan base. Litigation is expensive and MP3 blogs are small-scale and some labels have begun supplying blogs with music so there have not been many confrontations between record labels and bloggers. Some bloggers receive "cease and desist" letters from labels and although a code of conduct has not been written, there is a concept of ethical audioblogging. Songs are removed after being posted for typically around one or two weeks, no more than two tracks are posted from each album, and links to sites where readers can buy the albums are provided.

            For my research on why copyright owners are willing to waive some of their copyright when it comes to MP3 blogs, this is a useful article in seeing a little bit of the motivation for both bloggers and record labels to coexist. It provides some commentary by the bloggers themselves as to why they put work into blogs and what makes it important for them to exist. It also discusses blog ethics which are part of the reason labels are not against MP3 blogs, and looks at one blogger's idea for a possible future move for the labels which could start their own blogs in order to promote their back catalogues. That provides an interesting comparison between a legal MP3 blog created by a label and an illegal MP3 blog which may have more credibility among the blogging community.

This is a New York Times article about how Warner Brothers Records became the first major record label to ask MP3 blogs to play its music. Robin Bechtel, vice president for new media at Warner Brothers and Reprise Records had the company contact MP3 blog websites and ask the bloggers to post and review songs by the band The Secret Machines. This is an interesting strategy for a major record label to pursue because most MP3 blogs post song files without permission from the copyright holder. According to Bechtel, Warner chose blogs which "were promoting music responsibly" by having permission to the downloadable songs and also linking to stores where the full albums could be bought. The label would benefit by gaining free promotion and establishing a little known artist. Out of at least eight MP3 blogs contacted by Warner, only one blog posted the track, after having it sent. Many bloggers only look to find new music and the Secret Machines were already being played on radio. Two other sites had already posted Secret Machines tracks before Warner had sent them and once several blogs have posted tracks, others are less likely.

            The move backfired for Warner however because after the song was posted on the blog Music for Robots, several comments posted under different names were linked back to computers in the Warner offices. The indie rock song was also sent to a hip-hop blog, Cocaineblunts which was seen by the writer as proof of a disconnect between the major label and blog culture.

            This article is central to my project which is to look at how copyright holders are now willing to waive their copyright in certain cases such as MP3 blogs while the RIAA continues to sue peer 2 peer software. Blogs have not upset labels because there is such a strong culture of unwritten rules and basically a code of conduct for bloggers. For example, songs are not left up for long periods of time, only a couple of tracks from an album are posted and links are included to stores where full albums can be bought, and bloggers will take down songs if asked by the copyright holder. In this article we see how a major label is realizing that in order to reach a large portion of album purchasers they need to promote their artists as independents by using the internet and particularly mp3 blogs to break new acts. However, the very reason why MP3 blogs have not particularly bothered the labels is also preventing the labels from being able to use the blogs as they wish.

This document was posted on Mark Cuban's website blogmaverick.com.  Cuban claims that this is the actual filing of the case Tur v. YouTube, and judging from the legal jargon and very deliberate format, there seems to be little reason to deny that this is the actual filing.

The document states that on December 4, 2006, the case Robert Tur v. YouTube will be heard in United States District Court of Central California.  The introduction states that "there can be no doubt that serious and repetitive infringements of Tur's copyrighted works are displayed...on YouTube on a daily basis."  It also states that YouTube's main defense is the Safe Harbor Act in the DMCA, which they say protects them because they immediately remove copyrighted content at the owner's request.  The summary of Tur's claim states that YouTube does not qualify for the Safe Harbor provision because they make money "in the form of banner advertising directly attributable to the infringing video clips."  The article then goes on to list the details of the case, which basically state that five clips copyrighted by Tur are being shown on YouTube illegally. It also states that Tur is seeking roughly $150 million in damages, or $150,000 for each illegal viewing of his clips.

The decision in this case will be absolutely essential to the future of YouTube as a legitimate business.  While YouTube has helped solve many of their copyright issues with big name studios through recent revenue sharing agreements, a decision favoring Tur in this case would open the door to more lawsuits from small copyright owners.  This case will also test the legitimacy of YouTube's safe harbor defense.  Without the safe harbor provision, YouTube is an illegal company.  If this court's decision and later decisions eventually change the validity of that provision, or convinve Congress to do so, YouTube may be completely out of luck.  However, a win in this case would put YouTube on solid legal footing behind this Safe Harbor Defense.

Peter Fader of Wharton called the agreement between Warner Studios and YouTube, which allows Warner music videos to be played on YouTube in return for a portion of the ad revenue, the "single biggest business development deal in the history of digital media". Internet mogul and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, on the other hand, believes that YouTube will ultimately have the same fate as Napster and be crushed by copyright lawsuits. The real answer may lie somewhere in the middle.

The article mediates a debate between naysayers, such as Cuban, and optimists, like Fader, over what the fate of YouTube will be. Cuban states that YouTube is "in the same boat as Napster". He argues that although YouTube may do a lot of good things for copyright holders, such as the promotional benefits, it will not be enough to make every single copyright holder happy. Cuban notes that it would only take one successful lawsuit against YouTube to bankrupt the company. Fader, on the other hand, suggests that the Warner deal could lay the groundwork for future deals between YouTube and other major Hollywood studios. His prediction seems to be right on the money. Since this article was published, YouTube has made agreements with CBS, the NHL, NBC, and most notably, Universal Studios, which had previously been YouTube's most outspoken critic.

Also discussed is the significance of the agreement between Warner and YouTube. Fader notes that this agreement represents a sort of paradign shift, mentioning that Warner took a completely opposite stance when it was fighting Napster in court. Also, the agreement sets a trend for other companies to follow suit. This prediction by Fader was also proven true with the new YouTube agreements mentioned earlier. Fader also predicts that these deals will allow YouTube to "call the shots" in the video industry, much the same way Google runs the search industry.

The debate in this article is the fundamental issue regarding YouTube and its legitimacy.  It is important for YouTube to secure protection from copyright lawsuits, and they seem to be doing that with recent agreements and their willingness to takedown copyrighted material.  However, Cuban's view does hold true that one lawsuit could cripple the company, and that lawsuit could be Tur v. YouTube.  The ruling of this case and others like it may ultimately determine YouTube's future. 

Michael Liedtke writes in this article about the recent lawsuit brought against Google involving Google's online video service and whether or not the lawsuit is a sign of more copyright issues to come for Google's newest addition, YouTube.  He writes that content owners may only be biding their time until the Google acquisition of YouTube is finalized.  At that point, a number of lawsuits may be filed against YouTube by copyright holders. 

Google launched its online video service this January.  Since then, Liedtke writes, they have been desperately trying to catch up to YouTube, created a year earlier by two Pay Pal employees in California.  However, Google has "abandoned its attempts to catch YouTube", and instead just purchased the company for a cool $1.65 billion.  The issue with the acquisition, Liedtke explains, is that copyright holders can now sue YouTube with expectations of a large payout, now that they are backed by the immense capital possessed by Google. Liedtke notes that before the deal with Google, YouTube "had been subsisting on $11.5 million in venture capital".  Google itself has $10.4 billion- in cash.  Google itself has acknowledged the fact that it could face more copyright lawsuits because of YouTube.

Liedtke also talks about the widely circulated internet rumor which said that Google had set aside $500 million in case copyright issues came up after the purchase of YouTube.  The number was later confirmed to be $200 million by Google representatives.  Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, continues to remain confident amidst the fears of lawsuits.  He said that YouTube has "been on this path" referring to copyright issues, and that together they could solve these issues "more quickly". 

Investors also seem to be unfazed by copyright concerns over YouTube.  Liedtke points to the fact that Google has a lot of experience in copyright cases and has yet to been dealt a serious blow.  Google's stock has risen nearly 15% since the purchase of YouTube. 

Tim Wu in this Slate article describes in detail the differences between YouTube and Napster and why he believes that YouTube has very solid legal footing. Wu simply says the YouTube has a safe harbor provision in the DMCA protecting them, while  He also describes the "Bell lobbyists" and how their efforts set the foundation for YouTube's seemingly successful business model. 

The Bell lobbyists, Wu writes, fought one of the greatest copyright struggles in history when it took on Hollywood over the liability of internet companies for copyright infringement.  Wu describes the clash of these two entities as "Frazier meeting Foreman", saying that the unstoppable force that was the Hollywood lobbying team finally met an immovable object in the Bell lobbyists.  Hollywood, on one side, wanted internet sites to be responsible for all content on their site, even if they were unaware of the infringing content.  The Bell lobbyists insisted that this was ludacris and fought against Hollywood's lobbyists with all their political might.  A stalemate insued, so a compromise was reached.  Wu writes that this compromise would later become Title II of the DMCA, which states that companies are protected by a "notice and takedown" system.  This means that all a site has to do to comply with copyright laws is take down infringing material at the request of the copyright holders.  Therefore, YouTube only needs to quickly takedown any material after notified to avoid legal issues. 

Wu does mention that this provision is not 100% "air-tight" noting that if YouTube knows there is infringing material on its site and fails to act, it may be liable in court for the infringement.  Wu then describes the difference between Napster and YouTube, saying that if the Internet were a red-light district, Napster would be the "pimp" and YouTube the "hotel".  He says that while Napster, like a pimp, is a means of getting illegal things and nothing else, YouTube is like the hotel in that they only "provides the space for people to do things, legal or not".

Amanda Bronstad in this article writes about the differences between the copyright infringement cases that ultimately doomed music file sharing sites like Napster and Grokster and the current batch of cases involving video sharing sites like YouTube.  On one side of the argument, video sharing sites say that a major percentage of their content is perfectly legitimate and legal.  Also, these sites, especially YouTube, point out that they remove content considered to be copyright infringing immediately after they are notified by the copyright holder.  This did not happen with music file sharing sites. However, lawyers for Hollywood's major studios say that their case is bolstered by the fact that they now have a precedent in MGM v. Grokster.  They argue that web sites know they make money off of this infringing material, and therefore are liable for induced infringement.  They also say that video sharing sites may be considered direct infringers because of the role these sites take in editing user content.

Bronstad also notes that while the recent agreements between YouTube and major studios such as Universal, Warner, and CBS does help legitimize the site, the agreements aren't necessarily "suit proof".  She says that many experts in the field see a major gray area that could be exploited by an ambitious company or law firm.  She says that the debate will ultimately come down to the DMCA's "safe harbor provision", and whether or not these video sites have put in place and enforced rules to protect themselves from future legal issues.  She says that the strongest safe harbor these companies have is the ability to remove copyright infringing material from their sites.  If sites continue to consistently remove copyright infringing content, as YouTube has done over the last few months, then these companies will have a strong legal foundation for their business models.  

Price explains the relationship between transnational media and the state's sovereignty.

Means available to the state to solve conflicts include force, technology, negotiation and law. 

Krolokke begins her essay by recapping recent research in gender and language in cyberspace, including the role of "grrrls" who specifically resist male domination.  She then describes her study of 5 MSN channels of Internet Relay Chat (IRC): gay chat, lesbian chat, transgender/transsexual chat, politics2000 chat, and African-American chat for what she calls "playful chat".  She analyzes the transcribed speech for 4 types of language play: abbreviations, paralinguistic cues, hybrid language, and insulting speech. Krolokke uses performance theory to explain gender play online such that she considers "linguistic gender" to mean performing a speech pattern that follows social and cultural expectations or stereotypes associated with the speech of that gender. She explains that in some cases,  "IRC provides a space for participants to play out their most convincing performances of parodic linguistic identities."  As such, she provides an argument away from earlier linguists who argued about the inherent differences in male/female communication and towards later "third wave" linguists who see all communication and all contexts as marked for gender, not the speaker him or herself.

PDF/text available

In this article, Bromseth discusses his research into 2 Norwegian email lists: Radical Forum (a socialist/Marxist forum) and The Doctor's List (a forum for general practitioners) in which the membership was divided approximately 85% men and 15% women.  While the political group tended towards confrontational discussion and raw polemic, the medical forum was characterized by face-saving strategies and an emphasis on "brotherhood".  Bromseth argues that the latter behavior should not be seen as "feminization" of male speech, but rather as an example of positive and definitively male social practices in modern (2001) Norway.  To him, gender is constantly being constructed in relation to other social phenomena and contexts must always be examined independently to show such construction without stereotyping behavior.  This argument runs in counter to the generally accepted thoughts towards men's speech and should definitely be considered as a reminder to readers to not make generalized assumptions based upon previous theories, but instead, to take into account mitigating cultural and social factors when analyzing any speech community.

PDF/text available

Despite the fact that it was originally printed in 1987, Rice and Love's essay still provides interesting theoretical material about computer-mediated communication (CMC) in that it seeks to dispel myths that all computer-based communication is unemotional by nature and lack of bandwidth.  Among socioemotional content found, they discuss face-saving mechanisms, disinhibition, and "flaming".  They created 5 hypotheses about socioemotional content to be measured in the datasets of six weeks of transcripts from the Medsig/Compuserv public computer conference in order to attempt to prove their thesis that CMC over computer networks mirrors participation in real-world communities.  While this study does not differentiate variables according to gender, it was interesting to me to read their conclusions that the participants did particpate in socioemotional discourse, although there was no increase in the amount of such discourse over time.  I think that if the study were moved to a non-technical forum and increased in physical time length, that the results seen might be very different and more informative.

PDF/Text Available via Elsevier. 

I became interested in Matsuda's analysis because, even though it has nothing directly related to gender, it shows a clear picture of how linguistic markers used in verbal speech are carried over into an internet context to delineate identity and power relations.  Matsuda analysed the written communications in Japanese  of Japanese ESL teachers on the online community TESOL Link for verbal markers such as formal verb endings, address terms, and honorifics that are used to signify deference and vertical social relations.  Interestingly enough, he found that there was more horizontal than vertical social relationships on the list, and that when hierarchical distinctions were shown, they were created from a perception of knowledge as power more than seniority or social status.  To this, Matsuda cites the teacher vs. learner role as invoked frequently on the list.  While he notes that hierarchical relations were found to come into play in a theoretically hierarchy-free environment, Matsuda points out that the power relations were able to be re-negotiated by the members online in a way that might never have been possible in real face-to-face communication given social and linguistic norms in Japan.

PDF/text available

While I may never actually cite this reference in my work, I think it is a valid reference for email in 1998.  While Baron does not focus on gender in email communication, she seeks to provide a history of email and how it linguistically differs from both spoken language and other forms of writing.  She puts forth an interesting theory that email could be considered a "creole" language, citing linguistic evidence of "pidgins" that have a highly restricted set of communicative functions while they function as a lingua franca, which matures into a creole as a second and third generation of native speakers grow up in the linguistic community. Since email is less than 40 years old, time will tell if the language used in email will become its own standard with grammar and conventions, or whether it will continue to creolize and adapt to the technological changes of its electronic medium.

Gefen and Ridings, both local Philadelphia scholars, begin by recapping women's and men's sociolinguistic patterns of discourse as prior discussed in the literature. They hypothesize that women, more than men, will wish to both receive support from and give support to a virtual community in which they are participating.  In addition, they hypothesize that such support will influence women's assessment of the quality of that virtual community, and that women will more constantly than men rate their virtual community as having higher quality.  They surveyed 39 discussion boards, which they divided into men's, women's, and mixed boards.  As to be expected, women more than men were found to go to discussion boards for support. One of the interesting results they found is that the men surveyed also sought rapport and support, but did so more often in men's-only communities, presumably where an expectation of common language would be held, and did not rate them lower in quality, even though rapport-seeking can be considered as indicating inferior social status among men according to past sociolinguistic studies.  When the men did seek rapport in mixed-gender groups, it did not affect their assessment of the board's quality because there was an expectation of rapport-seeking inherent in the mixed-gender environment, since women were present and rapport-seeking is a characteristic of women's speech.  The authors admit that even as they tried to control for gender-bias in the chosen bulletin boards, that some of the communities were specifically support/rapport based (eg. cancer support) and that may have skewed the data towards women's speech and away from men's speech.

Penntext/PDF available

In this article, Herring discusses her research into both asynchronous communication via discussion list and synchronous communication via IRC in which women were subject to harassment and demeaning characterizations by men.  In both instances, the result was that the affected women fell silent or complied with the male behavioral normatives.  I think it is important to note the forums chosen, as there may have been some issues inherent to the discussion which should be considered above and beyond the linguistic patterns. The discussion list was Paglia-L, a group dedicated to discuss the writings of the cultural theorist Camille Paglia, who is often referred to as an "anti-feminist feminist" and who often generates polemical discussions among women as often as in mixed company.  The IRC channel was #india which is primarily composed of expatriates from India living in English-speaking countries, and as such, specific Indian cultural patterns may have also influenced the speech found on that channel.  What is most useful to me from this essay is how Herring defines harassment online, shows examples of its resistance and escalation, and finally shows how the female participants accommodate or conform to the degrading situation.  If these examples can be extended across the internet, it would indicate that male-female communication suffers from similar breakdowns as those that can occur on the job or in any face-to-face situation where harassment may surface and as such, that we have a long way to go to address gender equality online.

PDF/full text available

Winter and Huff's study focuses on a 1996 survey of a women's only online bulletin board for computer scientists called SYSTERS. Although the study is 9 years old, it still brings voice to women who were previously marginalized as gender minorities in their field of work/study.  The authors discuss the issue of same-gender boards being both "havens" and "ghettos" for women online, and also provide some support for Cass Sunstein's theory that the internet allows for the consolidation of like opinions - both positive and negative, as in the case of women's forums and online sexual harassment, respectively.  Based upon their work, the authors felt that the differences between the genders in online communication was equal or magnified to that present in speech.

Penntext/PDF available

Soukup's study focuses upon two chatrooms - one sports-related and male-dominated, and the other female-based and female-dominated.  His results support the ideas cited by Tannen and others in linguistic studies of discourse, in that the male chatters were more aggressive, argumentative, and power-seeking than the female chatters.  It's unclear to me whether the results can be viewed as reliable or representative, since there may be an inherent social context to a sports-related chatroom/bulletin board that goes above and beyond being merely a male-dominant community.  For example, Soukup cites the fact that the sports-related chatroom essentially turned into a locker room replete with profane and sexist language, including sexual put-downs and challenges between male chatters.  He goes on to note that when male chatters entered the chatroom of the female-based community, that there was frequent inappropriate behavior such that groups of male chatters would take-over the room with sexist remarks or propositioning of the female members. 

Shade's research, although not linguistic in nature, is useful to provide a background into women's roles in constructing the Internet.  She begins by reviewing research on gendered uses of various communications technologies, including the telephone, radio, and television. She discusses cyberactivism and feminism, as well as public policy determining women's access to the internet.  She cites a case study of women in China and internet access implementation and concludes with a discussion of whether women are merely consumers targeted by merchants or active citizens in an online sisterhood (discussions that we have held in class as well).

Penntext/PDF available

In this essay, Frederick examines the question of whether computer-mediated communication is truly a democratic utopia where feminist values can flourish.  By studying data from 2 newsgroups, alt.feminism and soc.feminism, she demonstrates that discrimination and exclusion/hostility can continue to occur, even in a supposedly inclusive and politically feminist context.  She concentrates on the ethos of the newsgroups as the basis for constructing either a welcoming or distancing communication arena.  My interest in this article stems from this notion of ethos because I think that it a highly influencing factor which combines with inherent linguistic features of women's speech to produce a speech community.  I believe that any future discussions of the social structure of online communication must address ethos as well as linguistic differences in order to prevent factionalization or balkanization of men and women online, much as one might approach a dialog about multiculturalism and the internet.

PDF/text available

Baron begins her analysis by situating instant messaging as a form of computer-mediated communication and attempting to create a profile for IM communications among undergraduate students.  She first reviews the linguistic differences in spoken speech: social vs. informative speech and standard vs. non or sub-standard usage by men and women.  In terms of written language, she reviews concepts related to personal letter writing and studies about gender identification of online texts. She analyzed the IM data for turn taking, sequences, conversation length, and lexical issues to determine possible effects of gender.  She found no differences in turn taking, but found that women had greater overall conversation length and length of ending sequences.  From the lexical analysis, Baron found that men used more contracted forms of words (e.g. "I'm" instead of "I am") than women.  Most interesting to me, and not at all surprising given my real-world online experiences, was the finding that women used more emoticons than men in the IM conversations.

The collaborative fulfillment of consumer orders by Internet retailers and wholesalers has proven important in the realization of sustainable levels of online profitability. Concentrating on consumer direct fulfillment (or drop shipping), an empirical simulation model evaluates avenues for improving logistical performance. The empirical simulation model centers on the online music CD retailing industry. It evaluates the effects of emergency transshipments and demand dispersion on inventory and product-release performance, as well as on transportation costs, in consumer direct fulfillment operations. Results show that emergency transshipments improve inventory and product-release performances in these operations. Furthermore, the inventory-performance improvements are maximized when inventory facilities fulfill demand that is uniformly balanced across markets primarily assigned to each facility. Finally, gains in inventory and release performance obtained from emergency transshipments outweigh additional transportation costs incurred from a greater reliance on emergency transshipments for consumer direct fulfillment. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

This article  provides a lot of quantifiable information regarding aggregate online sales, total industry revenues and projects estimates for up to the next three years. The article says that though online distribution has taken the music industry by storm, album sales still account for the majority of record sales.  There is still more room for online distribution to increase and CD sales to further decrease. Therefore the article urges the industry to continue to reconsider the way it does business and in addition suggests that "governments will have to think hard about regulatory structures." .

This article discusses the ways in which record companies are compensating for their losses through marketing.  After the Sony/BMG merge, Columbia Record Executive Charlie Walk, leads the way.  He asserts his belief that for the majors to stay in on the game they need to legitimize the online music downloading space and create alliances with consumer-goods companies to make a profit where it is being lost. Thus downloading has changed artist marketing too.

This article critiques the "crisis of reproduction" that confronted the music industry starting in the late 1990's. It explores some of the ways in which the industry is going about re-working its structure to compensate for its losses.  Also discusses the roles of the big four- AOL-Time Warner, Sony/BMG, Universal and EMI in the reorganization.

Doreva Belfiore

Linguists such as Deborah Tannen and Robin Lakoff have sought to examine the conversational styles and practices between men and women in order to formulate theories of gender-specific discourse.  In my final paper, I plan to take the theories of such linguists and apply them specifically to Internet venues (chatrooms, discussion boards, and Yahoo groups) to highlight differences in male and female user communication strategies.  It is my theory that while online, female members employ more verbal deference mechanisms and more consistently defend the use of “netiquette” than male members of similar age and regional background in order to preserve group unity and cohesiveness while discouraging group divisiveness.  From the theoretical readings assigned in class, I plan to cite from Republic.com by Cass Sunstein, and possibly also the 2 articles by Henry Jenkins, in addition to the other bibliographic citations.