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.

Sandoval, Greg. "What's the real cost of free music?" CNET 23 Mar 2009 1-3. 5 Apr 2009. <http://news.cnet.com/whats-the-real-cost-of-free-music/?part=rss>.

 

Greg Sandoval's article "What's the real cost of free music?" published on cnet.com discusses the death of free online music provider SprialFrog in March of 2009. Sandoval states that it was obvious that the service would not survive despite the good concept. Sandoval notes the prevalence of failure in the ad supported music service sector and the threat of going under lurking around every corner, as seen by the death of other services such as Rhapsody prior to SpiralFrog's demise. Although none of these ad supported music sites have yet to record any sort of profit, they have required quite a bit of funding to start and support. Additionally, Sandoval argues, the advertising market of today is "crumbling" and has not provided sufficient support for these sites to survive.
While radio is still a very prevalent source of music discovery, Sandoval notes that ad supported sites must pay a lot to license the music and make it free to users. While the intention of these sites is to boost and support sales, Sandoval notes that the sites are, in fact, replacing sales. Thus, as the record labels are losing sales to these free music sites, the industry is requesting that the sites increase their licensing fees to cover the costs of the lost sales. Finally, Sandoval argues that ad supported sites must adjust their model to encompass social networking sites, which are capable of amplifying the word of mouth necessary to spread the buzz about music and various ad-supported sites.
This article is relevant to my paper topic because the author discusses how changes in the landscape of new media and the recording industry and restructuring themselves according to consumer needs. Sandoval takes the failure of SpiralFrog and demonstrates how the structure of the ad supported music site is not an adequate model to produce any sort of profit. In the future of the music industry, ad supported sites will most likely not produce enough revenue to support the artists and executives of the record label but could, if linked, as Sandoval suggests, with social networking sites, provide the best possible model for advertising and popularizing new music.

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: 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.

 

Deloitte's Media Predictions: TMT Trends 2008 lays out what their analysts have found to be some of the most important trends and implications for media, specifically with regards to technology, for the year 2008 and beyond. The report contains three sections that are important to the realm of the future of new media.

First, the report tackles the potentially slowing growth of online advertising. It makes two important claims. People tend to find online advertising more intrusive and pay less attention to it than print or television ads. This could be because internet use is typically more active, and advertising can hinder this active process. The second problem is the trend for privacy and against personal tracking. The use of tracking and targeted ads is the single biggest advantage for online advertising. If enough major companies and consumer groups come out against the practice, this could create a major dent in the online advertising industry.

The second area the report explores is the impact of internet television on traditional television. The report makes the claim that internet television will be supplemental to traditional television, however this may be untrue. Although the report states that the major usage of internet video is for short form clips such as YouTube videos, network rebroadcasts have been growing so fast that the advertising revenue from Hulu.com, a studio joint venture to rebroadcast full television shows, will outpace the advertising revenue from YouTube. This shows the trend of people to begin to accept watching television online as a viable alternative to traditional television. The report does make one interesting suggestion that producers could take advantage of differing levels of quality to create a price discrimination scheme that could help add additional revenue.

The last area naturally follows the previous two. It addresses the difficulties in monetizing new media ventures. The traditional form of television media followed the crass simplification of  "Butts in Seats." That is the main goal was to have as many viewers as possible to watch the advertising, and pay rates were based on this number of viewers. Now, many forms of new media are attracting the viewers, but the viewers are not contributing to revenue. These viewers are costly to maintain and it creates a poor business model. The traditional methods will need to be changed to fit the new media world.

 

            In "Who's Afraid of Digital Downloads," an early article about residuals for new media, attorney Brooke A. Wharton argues from the talent perspective about the problems that arise over redefining residual agreements based on new technology. Shee bases his case on the history of the current home video residual agreement. Namely that when the first deal was struck between Magnetic Video, a Betamax producer, and 20^th Century Fox the agreement was that Magnetic Video would pay a 20% royalty fee for the licensing of their library. This deal was followed by many of the studios. In negotiating the talent contracts, 80% of the gross revenue was set aside and the 20% was split up among the studios and guilds. Wharton argues that this was fair when the manufacturing costs of one video were as high as $40. However, now that costs have come down to around $3, it is inappropriate for the studios to set aside such a large margin of the sales figures.

            It is to this argument that Wharton adds the arguments for new media. She states that the production and distribution costs for new media delivery is close to zero and that the higher rates of television should apply rather than home video. She then backs off to say that this is going to be a major debate and refrains from emphatically defending the talent's position. She ends by saying that this fight is not just a fight for digital download residuals, but for the compensation and pay of talent in the new digital age. This question is of utmost importance and could set the landscape for digital media and distribution for years to come.

 

Chapter 5 of Barabar Klinger's Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and the Home is titled "To Infinity and Beyond." In this chapter she explores the internet and its future for video content. She decides to focus her attention on made-for online shorts, both originals and parodies. Her argument is that the internet has created both a platform and a renewed market for short form content. She cites the popularity of early 2000's website AtomFilms.com and many popular short parodies such as "George Lucas in Love." Her attention is focused mainly on the artistic and cultural implications, rather than the economic implications. She seems excited about the future and the ability for filmmaking to be available to almost everyone in our society. Very inexpensive tools can be used to create successful short form entertainment, and the internet allows for full and unabated distribution.

One topic that she mentions briefly, but glosses over is of extreme value. The potential market for short form branded entertainment otherwise called advertainment. This powerful tool is simply entertainment content that is developed specifically to showcase or introduce a brand sponsored product. In one sense this goes back to the origins of television with sponsored shows. There have been a few very successful advertising campaigns that have used this new medium. BMW produced a series of films entitled The Hire in which they got famous directors and actors to produce shorts that included driving scenes. The films were pure entertainment, they did not tell anyone where and when to buy a BMW nor was there a distinct product they were selling. They were, however, showcasing the car and entitled BMW films presents. In this vein other shorts such as Dove's Evolution was a powerful two minute short showcasing the illusion of "model" beauty. This film was more educational but still with the purpose that people would choose to watch the short. These successful examples showcase a powerful new market that has yet to be adequately tapped. These shorts can be provided to mobile phones, sites such as YouTube, and any other short form marketplace. This should be the new trend in advertising and can have a large impact on the future of new media.

 

            The Summary of the Tentative 2008 WGA Theatrical and Television Basic Agreement is the end result of major negotiations between the American Motion Pictures and Television Producers (AMPTP) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) following a WGA. As is evidenced by the focus of the document, the major negotiations occurred surrounding points of new media. There are many other details changed within the Memorandum of Agreement, however, focusing on the official summary it is clear that new media was the most important. The rules for new media fall into two categories: original product developed for new media and the redistribution of media through new media platforms.

            The first part of this agreement deals with original products developed for new media. First, the agreement establishes the guild's jurisdiction over this sphere if the project is developed by an established writer, the project is a derivative of an existing covered film or show, or if the budget is large enough. In this sense the guild has won the jurisdiction argument and has established itself as creating the minimum contract necessary for these projects. The agreement also explains the compensation schedules and exhibition windows before residuals begin.

            The second part of the agreement deals with the reuse of existing media in new media platforms such as the internet or mobile phones. This part of the agreement sets up some interesting implications. First, it differentiates between, electronic rental, sell through, and streaming. This is an important distinction that will largely effect how the future of internet distribution will work. It defines rental as viewer pay for limited access, sell through as viewer pay for unlimited access, and lastly ad-supported streaming in which the viewer does not pay for access to the television show or film. Important terms under the new agreement make rental and download rates higher than the physical media equivalents of home video, but the ad supported streaming, although higher then home video is less than ad supported television.

            The other major implication within the agreement is that it allows for promotional "clips" to be shown without residuals of up to 5 minutes. This is currently being used for programs such as Saturday Night Live where the clip is all that is necessary and may mean that short subject shows will get a lot of attention and reuse online.

 

In their paper, Does Peer-to-Peer Harm Copyright Owners: Protecting and Distributing Digital Products, Anne Duchene and Patrick Waelbroeck create an economic model of peer-to-peer content sharing versus traditional distribution with specific respect to online music sharing. Although the paper was written about music in 2003, it can be thought about with respect to film and television today.

            The model makes a few major assumptions to reach its conclusions. First, the original work provides more utility than the copy. This can easily be supported in today's terms that the original versions are of higher quality and can provide additional features such as DVD extras. The second assumption is that content producers will spend a large amount of money marketing and distributing under the traditional methods, but these costs will be 0 for peer-to-peer distribution. This assumption decidedly focuses on small independent produced content and ignores studio produced content. Along with this assumption is that there is a cost to downloading copies both in the opportunity cost of finding the copy and second in the copyright protection both technically and legally. This assumption does seem to hold true to real world issues.

            The findings of their model is that as copyright protection is increased, not only is consumer surplus decreased through decreased utility for copiers but also for buyers in terms of higher prices passed on to implement the higher protection standards, but also that higher copyright protection favors the large studio productions that have the ability to overcome the capital thresholds for marketing and distributing through traditional media. This could easily apply to film and television new media as well. As the studios block access to files through DRM, they are increasing production costs and favoring themselves over low capital producers who cannot afford to implement these strategies.

This has interesting implications over the future of new media in terms of concentration versus fragmentation of the media industry. It appears that if left unfettered, the online channel allows for a fragmentation of content producers. This is evidenced by YouTube, Funny or Die, and other small yet popular independent online content producers. However, if the studios are able to enforce higher levels of copyright protection, for example winning the Viacom v YouTube case, this could further concentrate power in the studios. In this example, the higher costs of copyright protection would lower YouTube or other smaller sites abilities to operate profitably. If these sites that support user generated content are hampered, it will allow sites such as Hulu.com to dominate and favor studio produced content over user produced content.

 

            Why We Fight is a video produced by members of the Writers Guild of America during the Writer's Guild Strike of 2007-2008 to state and explain their position on what they were asking for in the negotiations. The video is both an editorial on the disagreement, but also represents a primary source of information that helped move the events of the negotiations. The video was distributed via YouTube, which is fitting with its content about the fight over digitally distributed media.

            The video lays out the background of the writer's demands. Namely that after television proved an important revenue stream for the repeated play of theatrical films and the syndication of television shows, the writers had rightfully convinced the studios to pay them a 2.5% residual for any replaying of a written work after the initial play period. The video states this as a given fair standard. It goes on to say that when the home video market came about, they agreed to reduce their residual by 80% for home video revenue in order to allow the studios to experiment with the new technology. This is due to the calculation formula that sets aside 80% of wholesale receipts before applying profit participation on the remaining 20%. The video continues by making the argument that not only should the current home video residual be raised to .6% as compensation to "give back what we've given up," but also that media that is delivered through downloaded content or streaming should be using the 2.5% residual for free television.

            The video does make one important relevant claim. It suggests that in the future, all television may be delivered digitally through technologies similar to IPTV or other forms of internet television. It claims that the studios will use this change to support paying the lower internet residual instead of the higher television residual. This claim is supported by evidence that studios that resisted new forms of technology in the past, using the threat to gain concessions from the guilds, have later embraced the technologies and earned more revenue as a result. While internet delivery of television and movies is not yet profitable, it may become the most profitable channel in the future.

 

            In their 2007 article, "Hollywood Labor Unrest Looms on the Digital Horizon," Hessinger and Liebenberg argue that not only are the question of residuals for new media going to result in a possible work stoppage (as they did,) but that fundamentally there is a flaw in the residual system. They liken the system to that of a contractor building a house. It is ludicrous to think that anyone would pay the contractor a small fee every year that the house stands for continued enjoyment of the house, but it is exactly this model that the talent guilds operate off of. They argue, however, that because this model is so engrained in the Hollywood system, that reform is preferable to abolishment.

            The article makes an important distinction between copyright law and contract law. In the terms of the talent guilds, especially the WGA, the talent has already signed over the copyright to the producers. In return for signing over the copyright, the producers agree to both a one time payment for services and residual payments based on the reuse of the material. Because this is not a question of copyright infringement, the negotiations occur not in the courts, but in arbitration and negotiation rooms.

            The proposed fix that the article suggests is that instead of taking the residual payments out of the gross revenue numbers, the residuals should be taken out of the profit numbers. They suggest that this would allow studios to recoup a profit before paying out residuals on projects that lose money. It does not seem appropriate that a film that lost a lot of money for a studio should be paying out residuals while the studio is still retaining a loss. However, this solution would not work in practice. It is very easy for studios to change their accounting methods to show no profits from many of their films. This would effectively erase residuals even on seemingly profitable films. These accounting methods may be questionable but are not illegal. Because of this, the new WGA agreement for new media bases the residuals of gross advertising figures instead of net profit figures.

 

 

            Deadlinehollywooddaily.com in spite of its long name is the source for all breaking news and great commentary for the WGA strike and AMPTP and SAG talks. Nikki Finke has created a blog that not only has been providing news and updates about the situations, but she has personally broken many of the stories, especially during the writers' strike. Her posts are decidedly pro-union and very against not only the studios, but the industry trade papers for reporting in slanted ways for the studios.

            Her position on all the union contract negotiations has generally been one of David versus Goliath. She has taken the position that the talent guilds deserve higher residuals, because they are the little guys who are being strong armed by the studios. Although her claims are not readily based on sound economic analysis, she does have a very keen understanding of the actual players in the discussions. She reports how the studio heads deliberately aim to horde profits while keeping the talent as under paid as possible. One of her best posts was supported by a video that juxtaposed the studio heads saying to investors how profitable online distribution was going to be with the statements to the WGA that there was no money in online distribution and that they would not agree to any residuals before they could "experiment" with the medium.

            Nikki Finke's position has nevertheless been backed up mainly by her ability to quote the hypocrisy of the studios. It seems that it has been her intention to keep the studios in line when it comes to presenting an accurate description of the effects of the new media contracts. Currently her posts are centered around both the SAG talks, and the WGA's complaint that the AMPTP is not paying the residuals agreed upon in the Minimum Basic Agreement that was signed to end the writers' strike. Her blog is evidence that new media is such unknown uncharted territory, that often personal emotions tend to outweigh any rational thought. It seems very possible that the future of digital media may be decided in irrational, territorial infighting rather than sound economic business plans.

 

            In his article, "Watch Now: Netflix, Streaming Movies and Networked Film Publics," Chuck Tryon uses Netflix's new "Watch Now" feature to represent the new methods of Hollywood film delivery to the viewer. "Networked film publics" is the most interesting idea of the article and is presented in the title, but it is only briefly touched upon. The idea that it stimulates, however, is of an online community dedicated to the communal watching and discussing of film and television. Instead of a group of friends gathering in a theatre or a home to watch films and discuss them, the internet would connect random people from anywhere in the world based on like interests and watching these films could be a collective experience.

            Tryon mentions that for the time being the main way of watching these streaming films and shows is on the computer, and that this individual method of consuming content will change the type of content consumed. However, this claim only takes into account the intermediate stages of the new forms of digital delivery. Already Netflix has partnered with Microsoft's Xbox to deliver films on demand to televisions.

            Overall the claim that new methods of watching and interacting with content because of its distribution form is very interesting to the topic at hand. The power of groups to spread and distribute content may give power to the independent producers and new media producers while taking away from the gatekeeping abilities the studios have enjoyed. It is understandable in this context why the studios are concerned about new media distribution as an "experimental" technology that needs to be protected from exorbitant residual payments. However, the studios need to look at this as a new opportunity. They can have the ability to create fan groups and internet showings of films. They can price discriminate by charging different prices for the movie if it has extra features packaged with it. They can run discussion boards in which they can have very targeted advertising. There are many new opportunities to look for in this new delivery method.

 

            The complaint filed in the case Viacom et al v. YouTube et al, shows the potential harms from digital distribution of content. In the complaint, Viacom contends that not only does YouTube provide a service in which it is possible for users to post copyrighted material, they encourage it and have infringed copyrights for the purpose of promoting and growing the website. The complaint decides to sidestep the DMCA and make a charge based on previous copyright law. They argue that YouTube is not providing the necessary resources to copyright owners to stop infringing material, and that they are purposefully failing to stop the uploading of copyrighted material. This charge contains two important pieces of information for the topic of new media distribution. One, that there is a market being monetized of copyrighted material, and two, that there is rampant piracy and costs with preventing this piracy.

            The complaint makes a strong yet unsubstantiated claim that the majority of web traffic to YouTube is driven by copyrighted material. Anecdotally and unscientifically this does not seem to be an accurate description. Looking at the "Most Viewed" clips on YouTube, the lists are dominated by user generated content. Most of the viral clips that have become representative of Web 2.0 were user generated. The few notable exceptions being Saturday Night Live's Digital Shorts which were promptly taken down by YouTube before being uploaded to NBC.com and Hulu.com by NBC. In this view that is as scientific as the complaint is, it does not seem to hold true that it is copyrighted material that is driving web hits. In addition, YouTube had in place a 10 minute limit to any video clip (albeit for mainly storage limitation reasons) that would have precluded any longform entertainment to be posted.

            This debate brings up the discussion of now three types of new media content. Copyrighted material created for traditional media that is reused in new media, new media created and produced for digital distribution by professional producers, and user generated content. In this case it seems that YouTube is dedicated to being the market leader in user generated content, while allowing other sites such as Hulu.com to be the standard for redistribution of traditional media.

 

The media companies have always been reluctant to address new technologies. It has always been there position to let smaller companies experiment in the new space, and wait until ubiquity before entering and taking over the new market. This happened with television, home video, and will now happen with new media. After seeing the music industry collapse by losing control over the distribution of their music, the film and television companies have decided to enter the new media space. They are currently battling with everyone from YouTube to the talent guilds over the future business model of new media. Representative of the whole situation is the negotiations, strike and agreement between the American Motion Pictures and Television Producers and the Writers' Guild of America. This battle over residuals had the studios defending the position that new media is still untested and unprofitable. This is an exciting time. The future is up for grabs and whoever has the best business model will win.

Dan Gillmor's site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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