R 7/17 Online Discussion (see below)
-
Kuhn: “The YouTube Gaze: Permission to Create?” Enculturation 7 (2010)
— including “Video 2: Student project annotated” (embedded)
- + bonnie kyburz, “status update” Enculturation 8 (2010) Prezi & Video
— (example of “webtext” composition)
Due (9pm): Blog 3 — use reading for Friday (split in groups)
F 7/18 (read one for discussion/activity) Jenkins (2009): “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead” Parts 5–8
Split in Groups:
- “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part Five): Communities of Users” (February 20, 2009)
- “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part Six): Spreadable Content” (February 23)
- “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part Seven): Aesthetic and Structural Strategies” (February 25)
- “If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead (Part Eight): The Value of Spreadable Media” (February 27)
— Notes here (Google Doc)
Group activity: Network Culture and Learning/Instructions (Exercise 2 warm-up)
S 7/19 Due: Exercise 2 — Instructions Page (with notes/reminders)
R 7/17 Online Discussion
- → note: required for attendance & participation credit:
- One comment (brief) due at start of class (12:45pm) — Post
(note: avoid repeat/redundant points— read classmates’ comments before posting!) - One reply to classmate due by end of class (2:20pm)
— additional reply = participation extra credit!
—— bonus (optional): say Hi (or thanks, or Boo DCMA!) to Virginia Kuhn via Twitter?
» Primary focus for discussion (key issues/concerns):
-
Kuhn: “The YouTube Gaze: Permission to Create?” Enculturation 7 (2010)
— including “Video 2: Student project annotated” (embedded)
— (plus kyburz webtext?)
» Frame / Guide:
- Consider this week’s focus on “public pedagogy”— “informal learning” + participation + new/popular forms — and the “media ecology” conditions, including what is possible and promoted/facilitated along with the constraints, limitations, uses, etc. of technology and media platforms.
In presenting/discussion one particular point from Kuhn’s article — from her research, critique, experience — consider the relation to our on-going discussion of topics/issues of digital culture: network practices (social/community, “amateur”); technology & media (including hardware/software and platforms); uses, results, meaning; culture forms (new, hybrid, emerging).
Feel free as well to bring in example(s) from the group sites…
In your reply, try linking explicitly to the examples your group documents —
as well as to any key topics/issues from earlier readings (Jenkins & Lessig) this week about digital media & participatory culture:
learning, creativity/expression, production/composition, communities,
social activities, participation, communication, new cultural forms (“read-write” model);
“Core Media Literacy Skills” {Play, Simulation, Performance, Appropriation, Transmedia Navigation, collective intelligence, multimodality} ?
» In comment and/or reply, consider and address (speculate) the implications — possibilities and limitations — for composing digital media / participatory culture (withing or outside school, for instance?) at present and in future…?
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive
The creation of this video in relation to the four pillars of fair use is unmistakably present. In the making of this remix, the individual edited this footage as an analysis of the material as well as a means to convey a message that was not otherwise “evident in the video”. Due to the academic nature of these intentions, the legitimacy of fair use should, realistically, avoid scrutiny.
Colbert VS. Lessig (Aired: Jan 8th 2009) from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.
» Frame / Guide for first post (brief comment about Kuhn’s article):
Consider this week’s focus on “public pedagogy”— “informal learning” + participation + new/popular forms — and the “media ecology” conditions, including what is possible and promoted/facilitated along with the constraints, limitations, uses, etc. of technology and media platforms.
In presenting/discussion one particular point from Kuhn’s article — from her research, critique, experience — consider the relation to our on-going discussion of topics/issues of digital culture:
network practices (social/community, “amateur”); technology & media (including hardware/software and platforms); uses, results, meaning; culture forms (new, hybrid, emerging).
Feel free as well to bring in your example(s) of digital culture, especially from the group sites!
— additional reply = participation extra credit!
In your reply, try linking explicitly to the examples your group documents —
as well as to any key topics/issues from earlier readings (Jenkins & Lessig) this week about digital media & participatory culture:
learning, creativity/expression, production/composition, communities,
social activities, participation, communication, new cultural forms (“read-write” model);
“Core Media Literacy Skills” {Play, Simulation, Performance, Appropriation, Transmedia Navigation, collective intelligence, multimodality} ?
» In comment and/or reply, consider and address (speculate) the implications — possibilities and limitations — for composing digital media / participatory culture (withing or outside school, for instance?) at present and in future…?
I think it is very interesting how YouTube is able to create this powerful image to its users about copyrights and the fair use law. Mainly intimidating people to the point where they know that they know they are not breaking the rules, but yet they still question themselves. This creates problems for YouTube users and the amount of media they are able to use to be “creative” due to YouTubes forceful hand by bigger corporations that are telling them to do so.
I really agree with the intimidation factor you talk about that this system instills into its users and producers so that the media content that is displayed is limited, or limiting users content that they want to display. you hit most of they keys point other than that
in the reading he has a really good argument about why the YouTube gaze is affecting not only what appears on YouTube but also the digital expressions that producers can put on the website.He also points out how these corporations are telling YouTube how to run the automatic identification system.
Fantastic moment when the first video isn’t loading and I tried searching for it elsewhere and it still won’t load. But my assumption is that Colbert is challenging people to remix that specific video and create a video with an alternate message. Both the attached videos below it are saying how Colbert is saying not to remix the video and steal his copyright material. It shows how you can take a certain video and crop it around to get a message you want it to be sending and you can alter the meaning. Like in the “student annotated” video it takes bits of speeches from female politicians and uses that show a dichotomy between male and female politicians. I believe that any use of content on the internet is fair game to do with as you please. The part where she questions the freedom of speech on youtube and their restrictions I agree with.
I agree that if it’s on the internet it’s fair game to an extent. For example, content on youtube is totally acceptable to alter and reuse, until it reaches viral status. Copyright only becomes an issue when youtube realizes they can make ad money off of the video. This is how capitalism works.
Right but it is the WOrld wide web-other countires that havn’t embraces captitaliam have the same acess. Our readings emphasised that capitalistic views of the internet is a predominantly American phenomenon.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/16/nintendo-mass-claims-revenue-from-youtube-lets-play-videos/
The first article really resonated with one topic the Gaming group presented in class. This first link describes a fairly recent attempt by Nintendo to make copyright claims to their content being used on Youtube without express permission. The second link shows an example of some of the content (walkthrough videos being a large portion of the content) that Nintendo was seeking to claim ad revenue from Nintendo game video and and audio on the Youtube website by players. This may not be a Nintendo title, but is still a good example of the commentated walkthrough videos that are so prevalent on Youtube today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbTjaT9MuY4
One point of note; one of the readings this situation can be attributed to is the evolution of informal learning and the discussion of using participatory culture to gain information outside of what the élite distributes. Like a person watching a how-to video on programming as opposed to taking a computer science class at a university, these Let’s Play videos are the informal learning examples compared to the game guides distributed by companies like Prima. This shows the élite trying to stifle user-generated content that fuels the public pedagogy.
Great post, I am glad one of us brought up the Nintendo fiasco because it deals directly with copyright and gaming videos. I don’t think that companies should be able to claim ad money for every video containing their games. Even in “Walkthroughs” where all the person is doing is playing the game from beginning to end each experience will be unique depending on who is playing it. Everyone will react and comment differently therefore creating original content based around the game. I do see Nintendo’s side though. If we think of movies, we wouldn’t post an entire movie online with commentary on it right after the movie comes out and expect it to stay up on Youtube. This is essentially what people are doing with games and then monetizing it. Now with most games there is a great deal more personal input on the part of the user, and that is what I believe to be the key difference. The user is controlling what happens on the screen, and even in a game such as “Dear Esther” where there are no “free choices” (you just walk through the level until you finish it) one could choose to simply stop walking. Gaming videos capture the unique experience of the individual playing that particular game at that particular moment.
I think the Nintendo example you gave is great one. Within the film industry the act of watching a film with out paying for it is of course illegal, but for the gaming industry they realize that the watching of their games will not hurt sales. In fact with more people watching and posting it might even drive their sales up. Nintendo didnt block content, they only put ads in front of it. Which, I don’t think is completely uncalled for since the content the person is playing is theirs, but at the same time the person creating the video put the time and effort into making the segment. So maybe an ad revenue split would be appropriate of said person is making a bucket load of cash, but it seems irrelevant if the video is uploaded by a random person who doesnt intend for his channel to go anywhere. Again, this brings up many more laws that are too obscure to be usefull or just not in place yet.
Michael, even if said person is generating revenue with their channel, it isn’t through the redistribution of content. In regards to the gaming industry, they aren’t copying and reselling the game, and they certainly aren’t selling the videos. They may make money from donations or subscriptions to their channel (like on Twitch) but those aren’t tied into the content itself, those are separate from the viewing experience. No channel on Twitch or Youtube or any similar site has restricted viewership until a payment is made. The only time I really justify gaming content being restricted from redistribution in any form is when companies ask those that are playing their game (usually in beta testing) to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement. So tying this back into the discussion, if companies like Viacom and Warner Bros. want to control what goes up on the internet, they should require all purchasers to sign an NDA. Reselling content in copied form is cut-and-dried, black and white illegal. But using said content for non-profit reasons in any format should completely fall within the context of the “four pillars” of fair use. Most likely, it could fall under the “intent of the work” pillar. This encompasses any and all remixed content posted online, and anyone who would challenge that has no legal basis to do so, in my opinion.
» Technical Q. sorta off-topic:
has anyone “hacked” the record+share tech of PS4 to do so with movies?
It’s possible, although much more cumbersome (hardware + software + storage + time) on computer —
but yeah, where are the quick + easy “apps” for annotating / adding commentary to film, TV, music, games, videos, etc. by any/everyone?
(not that we want this necessarily, with our overglut of review sites/vids/blogs —
but this might likely accelerate participatory culture and catalyze new critical+creative forms…)
“Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to
archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate
media content in powerful new ways.” (Confronting the Challenges p.8)
or, for example, are we stuck with (simply re-posting) very short GIFs of TV + Film clips —
partly due to technology,
but partly due to copyright…?
You have got to know the rules before you can break them.
This is a great example of a discourse community and informal learning as Colbert breaks the 4th wall to talk to his audience and his audience not only listens but interacts with the media in defiance.
“You have got to know the rules before you can break them.”
The problem is that it goes back to the discussion of yesterday’s readings, where a parallel is made to the élite status of Latin in European history, and the control over information in our past. Your everyday “amateur” content creator doesn’t necessarily have access to the legal counsel they need to challenge these big companies that have copyrights on their audio/video media. How can anyone hope to be safe in posting a remixed piece of content, even for educational purposes (i.e. the student project shown in the first article), if these media corporations are going to throw money at the situation and demand their content being taken down? Citing sources in college is sufficient for an education at an accredited school, and this situation should be no different.
You make a good point.
Copyright issues seems to be a huge debate in this discussion and in our readings. Enforcment of online “law” is still being explored by officals and we will probably wittness breakthroughs within the comming years and the user population ages and modern blogs become classics.
The emphasis on “know the rules” was more about the knowlege of the technology. The creator would need to know about the video and the tools of remixing inorder to create and post the content that he did.
As with many writings about the internet, you always get writings on how were always being watched and unwillingly guided. I found Kunhs article interesting in her take on focusing specifically on copyright issues. I noticed she brought up youtube for copyright issues, which isn’t a bad example, but for the artistic community it might not be the best reprisentation. Many artist use fair-use in their video art and many of these artist know not to post their material on youtube. From at least my perspective many video artists either host their videos themselves or find a more video art focused website to post to. This goes as well for amateur video artists.Even though youtube might block video artists work, that is not necessarily the place people seeking that media would go to. In the cinema world, If your seeking professional level independent cinema you would probably go to Vimeo instead.
I wont delete my previous comment even though it was about video. Ignore this post if my video comment was okay. Her article on the all seeing eye of the government spying in and asserting their authority has always been a huge part of gaming culture. Ask your self. When buying a game are you getting a permanent lease to it or is it yours? Which is how many people defend torrenting games that were once theirs. I posted a link in the group about a game called Watch Dogs in which your character is able to hack in all things electronic and learn about everyone around you. Think of GTA, but a lot more tech heavy. So, in the gaming industry today many developers are very much aware of contemporary culture and like to incorporate that into their games. In which the community can possibly discuss the implications of said games with each other if those scenarios were true.
DRM within the gaming community is such a contentious issue, and one that needs to be addressed. We have spoken about Minecraft before and the creator Markus “Notch” Persson has an interesing take on piracy/DRM: “Piracy is not theft,” he said. “If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world. There is no such thing as a ‘lost sale’. Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?” (Forbes). This to me is the way of looking at DRM/copyright in the future. If a person remixes a song and it becomes popular, chances are that the original song will have more traffic because of the remix. Therefore the copyright infringement is actually bringing them more money and notoriety. Torrenting a game that you already bought because the legitimate copy has DRM which has rendered it unplayable is perfectly legitimate in my mind, but many would disagree.
Link to where I got the quote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/01/12/minecraft-creator-notch-tells-players-to-pirate-his-game/
Kuhn’s premise that copyright creates an atmosphere where people are forced to be less creative and produce less original content because they are worried about the repercussions of copyright infringement is very interesting, and I think a very important subject that needs to be further examined. How can Youtube promote an atmosphere of informal learning if they are constantly removing videos for supposed copyright infringement. It is easy to see how the removal of videos for copyright infringement can hurt the informal learning environment that Youtube has created. If a person wanted to learn how to play a certain song on the guitar but can’t because the tutorial videos keep being removed this obviously isn’t helpful to informal learning. Without a loosening of restrictions on copyright I don’t see how composing digital media could ever be elevated to a more formal setting in society. Whether it is for school or work, creating original content that is based upon someone else’s work will never be legitimate unless the U.S. drastically reforms the current copyright laws. The current copyright laws only serve to inhibit creativity and hurt the individual creators while protecting the large conglomerates that own most of the intellectual property in this country. If copyright were more lax then informal learning would be promoted, and the public pedagogy would change. Instead of informally learning how to get around the current copyright laws people could focus on informally learning whatever it is they are interested in whether that is remixing songs or creating mods for video games.
Great points here, about institutions, which I’d hoped we’d address somewhat (in replies if not posts).
Particularly interesting is the “digital skill” you note (like Brent mentions about torrenting), which emerges in the conservative “clamp-down” conditions of copyright crazy: “Instead of informally learning how to get around the current copyright laws…”
(Not to necessarily drive the conversation in this direction, but: mostly we’ve talked about “school” being conservative/limiting — while we need to remember that “extracurricular” composing, especially in jobs and on certain platforms, is not as utopian / ideal as we and some of our authors suggest…)
I totally agree. Capitalism in this nation is creating a very bad informal learning environment to just protect the large conglomerates so they can make more money. It only hurts the individuals who want to learn more through media that can’t due to these large conglomerates.
While I agree about some of your copyright statements, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they only serve to inhibit creativity. If I was a independent game studio and we had a hit game that sold millions. With thousands of fans creating content. I don’t think i’d like one of those fans to be selling shirts based on our IP. Instead it might be better to talk with the fan and just ask for a small percentage of profit. I say this, because many Indy studios have given a lot of time and money into the development and sale of their game. That even a hit game could still on yield small profits. In short, I think copyright laws should be rewritten, but not completely vanish.
I agree, it was definitely hyperbole that they only serve to inhibit creativity.
This is a very tricky subject. One the one hand, there are the copyright laws that restrict unlawful use of material. On the other, several forms of popular media use clips and other forms of content from other sources without consent on a regular basis. Several TV shows mentioned in the text get most of their content this way, i.e. The Daily Show, Colbert Report, etc. there are also several examples of appropriated videos using content to make a point.
I believe that it is a sticky issue as well. Like you said, their are many shows today that use other individuals content to get their point across. Another example, the show, Tosh.o, takes viral videos and just makes fun of them. But then the video gets more attention and hits, so it can be a win-win for the institutions (the show) and individuals (viral video).
I agree with with the way you’re saying it affects both parties. Shows your talking about like Tosh.o not only spread awareness of certain videos but do so to a population that would have possibly not otherwise seen it.
According to Kuhn there are three very prominent ways YouTube contain malpratice on copyright issues within its site, “misidentification (which is “rare but possible”), you have written permission (emphasis original) and, finally “fair use/fair dealing” [Fig 3].”( Kuhn) but with present day that line of what is copyright and what is within its fair use to use something is blurry. For example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0aSPhH2FW4) this video was created by the user WasteTimeChasingCars originally and was taken down by YouTube because of copy right laws, but a video like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OodKjujH_0w) by White Just Can’t Dance, or (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09iV_6wfZqc) Jaime Block was not. So where is that line supposed to be drawn according to Kuhns three copyright issues?
— whose “property” (copyright)??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CIXx9yP_Bw
Found this video interesting based off how to create YouTube video… just something I wonder what people thought about it.
I think the 3 examples you posted are great for showing the flaws in YouTube system for the determination of copyright violations. Obviously YouTube uses an automatic system to weed out videos that they determine violate copyright laws. I would find it highly unlikely that youtube would go through millions of videos by hand just to determine if they violated copyright laws. If 1 of those 3 videos got taken down for copyright there is not reason the other two should not. Each video has is nearly identical to the next and it tells you that something must be wrong with the system rather than the law. The fair use act section 107 is relatively specific and seeing that the first video is back online you know that YouTube decided that they video did not actually violate any copyright laws which shows that they messed up by taking it offline.
http://hulu.com/w/k0rk
The parody of “Real Housewives” from Hulu is a fantastic job at showing how dramatic and ridiculous reality TV is today. This Hulu series played upon Kuhun’s final thoughts of institutions vs. reality. Reality TV is extremely addicting because its so dramatic, but some people miss that it is only an edited and fake show. The “Hothousewives of Orlando” helps us become more aware of reality in a humorous way. The digital literacy of the parody helps close the gap between institutions and reality, while also allowing for digital creativity.
“Of course it’s real — I saw it on
TVthe Internet!”I think this topic is very interesting due to the complexities of the law. Copyright laws restrict users from posting freely. One one hand this forces them to be more creative because they have to come up with everything on their own but on the other it restricts their creativity because they can’t use any copyrighted media in the creation of their work.
I think this is all a setup, there telling users to do one thing but then they aren’t allowing them to do other things. It doesn’t really make any sense to me why YouTube is a site that is used my millions users everyday ad users cant use videos or anything on the site to e more creative.
I completely agree, that it seems like a set up. They want people to post but then say they are copying. That seems unfair and like more work for people to take down what they think is “copied”.
the article claims you must know the rules before you break them. YouTube has the copyright restriction that doesn’t allow users to copy and use work from the website or you will be breaking a law. The problem is a lot f people don’t know these laws and an end up violating that rule. The major companies I believe work with YouTube to catch people copyrighting and that can people bad because youtbe have millions of users who use videos off the site regularly.
Seems like discussion has “run its course”…
but certainly feel free to continue conversations!
Several really key points addressed (although some left out), with a few issues to consider going forward (especially about institutions and conventions)…
» Don’t be shy about saying Hi or asking Qs to Virginia Kuhn or bonnie lenore kyburz either! (participation credit) (ノ^_^)ノ