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?