subscribe to this pageThis 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.
ARIN’s Structure is as follows, “ARIN is a nonprofit service organization that is responsive to the needs of the public it serves. Stakeholders in the community drive policies and activities, thus enabling ARIN to keep in step with their requirements. The organizational structure of ARIN is comprised of a 7-member Board of Trustees, a 15-member Advisory Council, and a professional staff of nearly 50. The Board of Trustees and Advisory Council are elected by ARIN members for three-year terms.”Call#: Van Pelt Library P91.28 .M43 2004
The above argument also prodded me to consider the Internet’s role in how the screen culture changes from TV/cinema to computer/iPod/PDA/whatever. I had not thoroughly contemplated how it changes the media experience, but it clearly does; it also complicates my two divisions somewhat. You can, for example, have the Internet on your phone and computer, but not on your iPod (yet); but the iPod screen, to me, fits so clearly in with a new media approach to absorbing screen images that I feel compelled to fit it in with computer and phone image absorption. Perhaps, then, I’ll approach a discussion of the Internet’s effect on only certain new screen technologies.
The other aspect of this chapter that I thought I could prove useful was the authors’ discussion of the process of media access. They devote a good portion of the chapter to this concept, outlining both linear and nonlinear accesses and their presence in media. Ultimately, they suggest that linear access fits in with older (read: TV, non-Internet) screen cultures, and a nonlinear, or more engaging, method of media consumption, with new forms of screen technologies. While this simplifies the argument somewhat, it’s useful in a general way to indicate a potentially more active user response in newer media forms, which may in turn hint to a larger difference between viewer engagement with different forms of screen media.
I found this article interesting and potentially useful because it provided me with a new way of looking at consumers of new media. Most new media theorists consider consumption through the Internet and other digital technologies to be more personal; but the social context does still exist, and Livingstone does a good job in highlighting this in her article. Her hesitancy to discuss individuals, however, seems short-sighted in the face of what’s developed in the years since this was written. Personal computers and Internet interaction is essentially a single-person activity – how can you leave the individual out of that? But, her argument is worth considering if only to prod me to consider the larger social context of digesting and learning new media.
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006
The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.
Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P91.28 .M43 2004
The above argument also prodded me to consider the Internet’s role in how the screen culture changes from TV/cinema to computer/iPod/PDA/whatever. I had not thoroughly contemplated how it changes the media experience, but it clearly does; it also complicates my two divisions somewhat. You can, for example, have the Internet on your phone and computer, but not on your iPod (yet); but the iPod screen, to me, fits so clearly in with a new media approach to absorbing screen images that I feel compelled to fit it in with computer and phone image absorption. Perhaps, then, I’ll approach a discussion of the Internet’s effect on only certain new screen technologies.
The other aspect of this chapter that I thought I could prove useful was the authors’ discussion of the process of media access. They devote a good portion of the chapter to this concept, outlining both linear and nonlinear accesses and their presence in media. Ultimately, they suggest that linear access fits in with older (read: TV, non-Internet) screen cultures, and a nonlinear, or more engaging, method of media consumption, with new forms of screen technologies. While this simplifies the argument somewhat, it’s useful in a general way to indicate a potentially more active user response in newer media forms, which may in turn hint to a larger difference between viewer engagement with different forms of screen media.
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.
Call#: Van Pelt Library JF799 .I62 2006
Owen’s article is optimistic regarding future civic engagement, but often defines this engagement in terms of student political projects, voters looking at government websites, etc. She doesn’t offer much concrete evidence that these online practices translate into actual voting. She does, rather inadvertently, point out an interesting paradox: those users who are currently the most web-savvy are not yet old enough to legally vote. Furthermore, Owen’s article reveals that the Internet may only further engage those already intending to vote. She also rethinks the traditional concept of engagement, which in this case may mean community-building, blogging, etc. as opposed to actual voting.
This article gives useful breakdowns of American populations using the Internet by age, gender and race (although only in the categories “White” and “Black”) – but does not offer any analysis through more nuanced categories or race, class, geographical location, etc.
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?
Call#: Annenberg Library Reserve P94.65.U6 J46 2006
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.
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.Call#: Van Pelt Library HM851 .L56 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library JK1764 .T75 2004
Call#: Van Pelt Library JK1764 .D37 2005
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.
Call#: Van Pelt Library JK2281 .C67 2004
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?
Call#: Van Pelt Library HE7631 .S613 1997
This essay is a very concise, accessible introduction to copyright law and the concept of participatory culture. One major flaw that I found with the essay, however, was its demand that new copyright law take “information quality” into account. Who, for example, will become judge of the quality of information, and upon what standards will they make their judgments? This would obviously be a contentious issue, and one that the essay only barely addresses. Also, this essay adopts a fairly utopian conception of digital technologies and the internet, a view that seems to be shared by many contemporary cultural critics. The authors see digitization and the internet as great tools of democracy that will allow for a “participatory culture” unlike any previously known. While these are nice, comfortable theoretical positions to take, that does not necessarily make things so. As regards my own project, I am more interested in how these utopian visions of the “democratization” effect of digital technologies and the internet are coerced and manipulated by larger corporate or commercial interests. For example, this essay discusses how new copyright law needs to provide for “informational autonomy,” but I am interested in how this so called autonomy is ideologically coded and oftentimes highly coercive. In addition, this article relishes in the means of production being made available to all through digitization and the internet, but I want to know how this changes and is exploited by companies like Dorito’s that broadcast user generated content. Will these democratized means of production simply be co-opted by corporate interests, or is there something truly liberating and democratic about these tools? Anyway, overall this is a great essay to read as an introduction to participatory culture and copyright law.
This piece seemed to lament the fact that the Super Bowl advertisers were not able to monopolize traffic to the ads post-game. It sympathizes with the disappointment these giant companies must be feeling over only getting several hundred thousand hits (instead, presumably, of the several million which they no doubt deserved). Then the article goes on to give the companies tips for how to increase traffic next year, and strategies they should employ if they want fully capitalize on the online branding opportunity. This article testifies to the corporate interests of many media outlets, and can only be of interest if read for what the article is doing, not saying.
For my project, though, this piece is very relevant. It shows the way that commercial interests are sometimes subverted, and how in order to “set things right” (i.e. stop subversion of corporate interests) plans are being made to integrate the very thing that was the cause of subversion. Thus we see how the article calls for the companies to “work with” (i.e. subsume) those aggregator sites that so wickedly usurped their web traffic. This, then, is another example of how commercial interests appropriate more independent forms of media distribution.
This is an amazingly concise, prescient, and illuminating essay. It details in a very systematic manner the impact that digitization is likely to have (and, considering this was written in 2004, there predictions all seem to be coming true), and the implications of this impact. One thing it neglects to address, however, is the distribution of DVDs to buy and own. Will this form of distribution fall by the wayside as well, or will things like director commentaries and other bonus features make it a desired commodity? Also, what if you can stream the bonus features – will people still want to own something tangible? Overall, though, this essay is extremely helpful for anyone interested in studying the impact of digitization on the movie studio system both from a consumer and content producer point of view.
As far as my own project is concerned this essay is a useful account of the relationship between commercial studios and individual consumers. Also, its discussion of the impact of digitization on content producers, and the shift of power likely to ensue there, is extremely relevant to my own interest in user generated content. Further, this essay describes the “bargaining power” content producers are likely to gain as access to the means of production increases, and while this is most likely the case, for my purposes it is also necessary to examine how commercial studios will work to limit the bargaining power of producers or co-opt the work of content creators for their own commercial ends (e.g. Dorito’s Super Bowl ads, etc.).
This article is an interesting, albeit dated, piece. It brings up some relevant concerns about what happens when community based sites like YouTube are bought up by giant corporations, and does a mediocre job of reporting the ambivalence surrounding this issue. On the other hand, this article lacks a good deal of information that seems critical for understanding exactly what it means that Google has purchased YouTube. For example, it mentions that YouTube is already selling homepage space to advertisers, and this will only increase under Google’s control, but it does not explain what space it is talking about. Are these advertising videos parading as user generated content, or simply banner ads asking you to join Match.com or other such ubiquitous internet advertisements? This would be good information to know since advertising is such a protean, mutable form. Also, the article mentions that YouTube has already made deals with several other large companies (e.g. CBS, NBC, etc.), but does not explain what these deals entail. Do these companies post fake user generated videos that are truly advertisements, or do they simply get to advertise on YouTube in some other manner? So, while this article does touch upon some interesting issues surrounding both the dot.com universe and marketing, it also fails to provide sufficient information to make it a truly useful document.
This article relates to my own project in its focus on corporate conglomeration and marketing. Similar to how Google subsumes a digital community like YouTube, companies like Dorito’s are appropriating the work of independent, non-professional individuals. While this article expresses some fear about the implications of a company like Google buying YouTube, my project will express a good deal more skepticism about what happens when companies like Dorito’s start soliciting user generated content.
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."