In A Networked Self, Aufderheide mentioned the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video, which is designed to assist persons with identifying and distinguishing what video material can rightly be published from material that may be protected by copyright laws.  It is useful in identifying certain guidelines that may be the determining factor in these cases. There are four major factors mentioned in this reading that judges tend to use in litigation, the biggest of which is economic effect. This is defined as whether or not the use of the material would “cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner” (Aufderheide 283). The other 3 factors mentioned are the nature of the use, the nature of the work used, and the extent of the use. These factors combined can be used in most instances to determine whether or not copyrighted material is being excessively abused and stolen.

In The Social Media Reader, Lessig tackles this issue as well, but seems to take a more definitive point of vew. His argument is that some of these copyright laws tend to cripple the ability for new ideas and concepts. He does mention that it is important to cite sources, and that obviously is key, both in the entertainment world and in academia. He is of the belief that at long as you give the original creator credit by citing sources, you have the freedom to take any material you’d like and use it for your creative purposes. I tend to somewhat agree with him, only I suppose it’s a little more difficult when you bring video/visual concepts into the equation. In literary or academic study, it’s sometimes necessary to quote an eact phrase or passage  to capture a thought. This is also true in the news, where editors are known to use “a piece” of a person’s statement to make a headline or story. And by the time it is said and done, the final product is completely different from was originally said by the person being quoted.

Technology is changing media.  Media is changing culture.   These seem to be the core points that Marshall is making.  OK, I won’t disagree.  But for each statement, there is something missing.  No-one denies that new technology has had a profound effect on TV and film.  However, media consumption depends on a certain element of entertainment.  While technology can enhance or provide new forms of entertainment, it cannot provide the subject.  Good writing and imagination will always be needed to sustain audience engagement.  You many catch their attention with a new trick, but to hold the audience attention requires more than just impressive effects.  Just ask George Lucas.

With the second assertion that media is changing culture, there is an understanding that media also reflects culture.  New media seems to have the potential to better reflect culture than traditional media.  I think this is important because as we examine the shift in media and the shift in culture, we should be aware that these shifts are related but not one-to one shifts.  There seems little reflection on how the monolithic nature of traditional media failed to accurately reflect or cater to society in the wider sense.  Vast segments of modern society were never represented nor targeted as audiences.  As such, part of the discussion must be to what extent new media is reflecting a changing culture or simply reflecting previously ignored aspect of culture which have been here the whole time.

As for the other readings, I enjoyed Lessig, although he is a little more communist than I am.  Each of the readings from TSMR and ANS highlight issues and opinions about copyright.  A big part of the problem is that technology is changing faster than the old farts in Congress can move.  Although it looks bleak for the freedom fighters of the digital age, I have faith.  We don’t have a good policy on copyright, but we are having a good discussion, and that alone is enough to keep hope alive.

FYI: Being the last post of the class, I tried to come up with some blacksmithing reference or relevant cat video, but I got nuthin’. Sorry to disappoint.

Lawrence Lessig’s argument about copyright laws is based upon the nature of creativity. The story about his friend writing all of his university papers in quotes from other people is amazing. This to me shows how well-read a person can be. As scholars, we recognize a conversation about something, enter into that conversation, and raise our own voice in the discussion. What Lessig’s friend seemed to do was create his voice through “remixing” others’ voices. What an amazing talent, paralleling artists like Girl Talk—creating a totally original product by mashing up hundreds of songs.

A question that emerges out of this discussion is one that I’ve had for a long time. Following John Locke’s philosophy, we are born with a tabula rasa or a blank slate. Our environment informs us, acting as a well from which we draw information. Our “slate” is filled as we observe the world around us. According to this philosophy, it is nearly impossible to discern between what is originally produced in our mind and what is merely an amalgamation of information. When we see a movie, are we seeing something original or some kind of mixture between previous patterns of storyline, writing style, and directing? This idea seems to be intensifying as distinguished artifacts are remixed more and more. Not only is a movie like Cloverfield reproducing Blair Witch Project, Godzilla, and other movies, but directors are remaking their own movies (i.e. Bangkok Dangerous, 1999, 2008).

My concern relates to originality, if such a thing exists. When I write papers, how much “influence” from my environment is informing that writing to where it becomes plagiarism? I find this in my students’ work as well. One approach to answering this question is in the way Lessig does, by acknowledging other peoples’ voices and work that is related to your own. Pointing to the conversation as it takes place in the world, I can distinguish my own voice from others’ as I talk with them “side by side.” As I create a product (like an essay), I’m expected to recognize where the “influences” have come from. However, I’m concerned with what I’m not being able to recognize. Kris (I think it was Kris) mentioned that one of her undergrad students didn’t know if what she had written were her own ideas or if it was someone else, and therefore she could not be held accountable if she accidentally plagiarized. While I think it is ridiculous to claim complete victimhood of tabula rasa, I can’t help but worry about the example Von Lohmann discussed of movie theatres being sued for showing movies that contained un-authorized songs.

I’m intrigued by the remix culture that is expanding and how copyright is becoming more and more complicated. I believe it parallels the worries I have in my own head as I endeavor to write.

Lessig talked about the copyrights law in the age of digital technologies. Despite the law’s intended purpose of protecting the economic sustainability of the creators, the law has been recently applied too broadly, failing to distinguish professional works and amateur byproducts. Consequently, the law discourages amateurs to participate actively in content creations, although copyright law should protect both amateurs and professionals.

As we already passed the era of passive media consumption and entered active participation with co-creation era, the conflict between copyright and digital technology is worsening. Lessig pointed out that the copyright law is completely out of sync with the technology and heavily outdate. It cannot accommodate modern digital environment for creative content productions.  Hence, the author suggested that we should adjust the mind set into hybrid economy, which is based on the culture of participation.

Dramatic Stalking Cat (attracting 1.8 million viewers)

Lohmann’s article shared a similar view. The copyright laws are becoming more of obstacles to prevent creative productions because it imposes myriad regulations and the presence of lawyers and insurance adjuster. Unlike the era before digital technologies and commercially available media software, anyone can demonstrate their creativity and talents with available tools. Nevertheless, the current copyright laws cannot accommodate such creations, except in online. The “culture of participation” will not only dominate the future of content creations, but also facilitate the explosions of creativities because it even allows one with talent, but with a shallow pocket to hang around at the playground. The game is changed.

Marshall elaborated his perspectives on media in the context of the movie industry. Although he did not use the term, “interactivity” from the viewpoint of users’ ability to engage with contents via various communication technologies, I have doubt about the movie industry’s strategy of saturating every media channels with promotions backed by massive promotional budget. It is still based on passive consumption of audience. The industry wants to force-feed audience with the contents, rather than engage with the audience to build interest and fandoms. Besides, viral-marketing based promotions often do not cost enormous amounts of resources because fans do the promotion for their favorable contents. Just like, ‘Blair Witch Project’ was a tremendous financial success, the movie industry seriously need to consider interactive promotion strategies.

As Aufderheife pointed out, social media facilitates user content sharing easier than before. Just as we have shared experiences and contents with close friends in the day of offline, we are now doing nearly identical activities of sharing experiences and contents in online by enforcing the existing relationships with the people whom we maintain relationships. Nevertheless, such an explosion of creative contents and easy sharing certainly intimated media industry, and of course, legal retaliations against social media channels, such as YouTube, are well anticipated because the entire industry is frantically clinging onto the system, which cannot accommodate the explosion of user-generated contents. Nevertheless, passive media consumption is no longer a solution. I want to watch old commercial and funny animal videos when I want and have free time, rather than seating in front of TV. I got a hunch that I am not alone in this.

Chapters 6, 7, and the conclusion to New Media Cultures discussed new media’s impact on film, television, and other stuff, but I guess that the most interesting readings to me for this week were chapters 11 and 12 from The Social Media Reader, and Chapter 13 of A Networked Self. These chapters specifically dealt with an issue that I often wonder about- copyright.

Chapter 11 started the discussion. This chapter discussed the battle over copyright infringement. It appeared to make some good points about how the battle is not being won. It is simply creating a generation of criminals. I don’t want to be a criminal, who does? As will shortly be discussed, this appears to lead to my own worries about what I can and cannot post online. Chapter 12 of The Social Media Reader discussed the different rules that intermediaries of video productions face. Online intermediaries are under less stringent rules compared to traditional offline intermediaries. In fact, the chapter provided the following quote concerning this difference: “If the same sorts of rules described in the preceding section applied to the online intermediaries that provide digital storage and telecommunications services for every bit of data on the Internet, there simply would be no Internet.” “No company could hope to vet every e-mail message, website, file transfer, and instant message for copyright infringement” (p. 173). Although online intermediaries may not be completely held responsible for what individuals post on their sites such as YouTube, the individual posting is. Individuals can be sued for illegal use of copyrighted material.

Personally, what I can produce or post online is something that I have thought about on many occasions. I obviously do not understand all of the copyright laws. Does anyone? However, I do try to not participate in what I know is illegal (or sometimes what I think is illegal). For instance, I try not to watch copyrighted material that is being used illegally, and I try not to post items that I do not have permission to use. But I feel that I am very limited as to what I can do online. As I mentioned, I don’t know all of the rules and laws, so I often assume that most things online are infringing on copyright laws. It appears that I am not the only one who is concerned about this. Chapter 13 of A Networked Self states “In one of our studies, we found there was a high level of anxiety among college-age makers of online video about the risks of violating copyright (Aufderheide & Jaszi, 2007)” (p.276). Clearly there are others concerned about the legality of using material previously made by others. Chapter 13 was good in that it somewhat explained fair use, and provided some guidelines that individuals who are concerned with the issue can look to. However, it does not answer all questions.

References:

Aufderheide, P. & Jaszi, P. (2007). The good, the bad and the confusing: User-generated video creators on copyright, April, 20 pp.

Mandiberg, M. (Ed.) (2012). The Social Media Reader. New York: NYU Press.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

David Marshall is treading familiar waters (at least for me) in this week’s readings as he discusses the “rejuvenation” of film and television in the new media age. The affective results of a decidedly technologically driven medium such as filmmaking are certainly worth considering. From CGI effects building on classic, and more simplistic “illusions” to an increased awareness and prediction of future means of interactivity in films such as Westworld, Brainstorm and Strange Days, Marshall is on a quest to talk about humankind as represented in Science Fiction films. It is unfortunate that according to the predicted cinematic outcome, our increase in interactivity usually results in horrific scenarios. Marshall also outlines the democratization of media made possible by widespread, relatively inexpensive digital filmmaking equipment. I am a great believer in filmmaking for the people as a means of communication and community education. As for distribution, Marshall was still writing inside the DVD boom bubble, when video rental stores were doing really well, when this book was published and only briefly alludes to Internet streaming possibilities with Atomfilms and iFilm, both early incarnations of VOD. As far as the rejuvenation of television, it is amusing how much weight Marshall bestows upon “reality shows,” certainly a domain of entertainment worth critically studying now more than ever, especially since the popularity of such programming has waned.

Lawrence Lessig is all about the democratization of media, and the mashup/remix. In, “Remix: How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law,” he very convincingly argues for copyright authorities to chill out and consider the hybridized state of the amateur creative media on the Internet, particularly works that incorporate other works. He rightfully states (comparing the current state of things to Prohibition) that the war for control of creative properties is a losing battle that will result in the demonization of the young creators (many of whom are “children”) of new media. The question of difference between offline and online copyright procedures is covered by Fred Von Lohmann in, “Your Intermediary is Your Destiny,” an essay in which he compares traditional offline copyright lawyers to “doormen” and online copyright lawyers to “bouncers.” With offline intermediaries running a sizeable risk when showing any kind of commercial material that might have copyright infringement, it is very important for the lawyers to have all the necessary releases and paperwork. For online creative works, the process is that creators post their videos on Youtube or a similar website and then have the potential to get “bounced” as a result of copyright infringement. Whether or not legal action will be taken is up to the individual copyright holders and their lawyers. Lohmann seems very supportive of going ahead and posting your mashup/remix/copyright infringing work first and asking questions later. Finally, Patricia Aufderheide has gone and written an essay that seeks to empower Internet video makers, particularly those who wish to make us of pre-existing works under copyright. It’s really a beautiful use of scholarly research to inform creative individuals with the necessary knowledge of their rights to make works demonstrating “transformativeness,” because let’s face it, the history of creative endeavors has thrived by way of influence and cross pollination of ideas.  If Disney can do it, why can’t anybody?

In the Social Media Reader chapter, it was discussed how some fans of “Star Wars” have used the original concept of the movie, and put their own spins on it to make a very similar style of production. It isn’t just that these fans are making movies. Some of them are gaining an amazing amount of notoriety from these films, which in many cases blatently use the original themes to create “original” material. And the use of the internet allows some of these independent producers to have thier material spread throughout a pretty large network of followers. Although some laes are in place to somewhat protect this type of activity (Copyright Act of 1998), this is still something that we see far too often. You can even see pornography (don’t ask me how I know!!) that is based on actual movie themes. At some point, a more sure-fire method must be developed to prevent this very plagiaristic form of production.

In  A Networked Self, the writer discussed some boundaries between “labor and leisure”, and “consumer choice” which are  topics we’ve touched on before. As mentioned, we as consumers obviously have a choice as to whether or not we choose  to “participate” in many of these forms of social networking. We have a terms of use policy (though you almost have to be an ancient scholar or philosopher to totally understand) that makes us aware of the some of the ramifications of joining and using such networks. However, what if we are not told the entire story, such as that our online behaviors and patterns may be used to advertise to us and in reference to us? I guess fair is fair – once we make the commitment to participate, all is fair. It was further discussed whether or not our participation could be viewed as free labor…well, we are receiving an online service without a “financial” payment being made. So I guess it’s really true that nothing in this world is free.