Here's last week's H2O assignment...

We talked about the commodification of time related to our dedication of time to various online spaces. Some of these virtual communities are becoming commodified and function solely by the mechanisms of participation. Some people argue (e.g., Jenkins, Adrejevic, Uricchio) that participation may be a form of labor. Please try to argue whether you agree or disagree. Please think about the various uses of the notion of 'participation'.
Further, we talked about 'mods' (modifications) as user-created content ('participation'). What are the implications of the institutionalization and appropriation of mod culture e.g. by charging money for mods complicating the current notions of participation and blurring the boundaries of the production, distribution, and consumption. 

Eventhough the internet is a virtual space, the time you spend there is real time. When you decide to invest hours of your spare time to surf the internet, visit online communities and participate in discussions on forums, you have chosen to spend your leisure time behind your computer instead of going out. While going out usually costs money, for instance visiting the theatre, going out for dinner or sporting, spending your leisure time behind your computer is a relative cheap way to relax. However, is it really relaxing? Urricchio and others argue that online participation can be seen as a form of labor. Sure, playing games and chatting at cokemusic.com can hardly be seen as work, but how about forwarding emails from BMW to your friends, encouraging them to visit the BMW site to see what the page has to offer or sending Hallmark e-cards? This is a form of advertising, and you don’t get paid for doing so. While at first the participation of the users seemed a step forward in interaction between the producer and user,  the major companies have turned around the participation aspect and now are using it for their own advantage, for instance for advertising, branding and merchandising. While the users are mobilised for this, I do not think participation can be viewed as labor; it is still an individual’s choice to send e-cards or to participate in any other way. I think that if you participate (and in most cases there isn’t very much to participate in), you are well aware of the fact why you are doing it. For the most part it is just for fun, e.g. if you send a friend a link or an e-card, or play a cocacola game. You accept the advertisements because the service is offered for free, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to participate, no one is pushing you to do so. It’s just like shopping; if you buy something at a shop and they give you a bag with the name of the shop on it, you are also advertising for the shop while walking through the streets. But I think it is a little over the top to say that you are at work by carrying the bag, promoting the shop you have visited. Therefore, I don’t think the commercial participation on the internet can be viewed as work either. However, there are examples of user participation where people devote all their free time to user created content, for instance in de mod-culture. Although not seen as work, people who design new skins, weapons, levels and game additions, are doing the same work as people at the gamedevelop companies. Mods are freely available for everyone who has the game, but if the designers would charge money for their mods, the whole mod-culture would change. Because the boundaries between producer and consumer already faded, why shouldn’t the consumers who produce be paid? No one is forcing them to create mods, and they are just having fun with making them. Therefore, I think it would be a very bad development if the people who make the mods would earn money with it. It’s just a hobby of those people. Plus, the mods market would collapse if you had to pay a small fee for each download. I would argue that if you are such a good mod maker, the gaming industry will find you and add you to their team. So in the future, I think the gaming industry still will produce the games, and the consumer will still have the option to create modifications.

I'll post all the H2O assignments on my weblog, starting with the first, the test-question.

Sorry for the delay, I'm still working on the other questions and H20 assignments... they will be posted here soon! - Lazlo

Jenkins says that cultures are changing because of the culture jamming. But how many of the consumers actually blog and does it really have that much influence?

Jenkins envisions a perfect world where the consumers have the power to attack the mighty corporations and the ideologies they spread. But he doesn’t give any figures about how many people are actually culture jamming or, in Jenkins’ words, blogging. I highly doubt that the few who are fighting the status quo from their weblogs and subcultures will make a difference. The idea of transforming the ‘one way information pipeline’ is really noble and I agree that the internet has brought new ways to comment on the established structures, but just as the jammers themselves point out, there still are the ‘masses’ who don’t really care about being liberated. Though, this doesn’t mean they are still subjected to manipulation from the media conglomerates. People in the masses still can develop a critical position towards the content they receive, but just don’t have to urge to actively fight back. So the small amount of people who blog are probably not alone in their quest for liberation, but they are left alone by the masses. In the end, there is some movement of critique visible, but I highly doubt it will bring significant changes. But it did bring a new awareness about the power of the media and ways to undermine it.

 

In the article, it is said the filmindustry is now using intertextual commodities to promote their products. By using other media (press, internet, music) they are advertising the movies. Is the intertextual commodity a commercial issue or are the independent filmmakers also using the other media to their advantage?

In the article, David Marshall already states that the blockbuster movie was of great influence on the development of the intertextual commodity. The distributors of these commercial big budget movies wanted to create and ‘event-effect’; people should think it is very important to watch the movie. To create this effect, a huge amount of money is spent in advertising through different channels (articles, television interviews, websites, trailers, action figures). That way, people can’t get around the fact that the movie is playing and are constantly reminded to go and see the film, as it seems they are missing out on something really big if they decide not to go. For films with a limited budget, advertising is handled in a different way. The arthouse film is not promoted by huge posters, songs, advertising stunts or ‘making ofs’. It seems the intertextual commidity is mainly linked to the commercial practice of movie making, not to the entire filmindustry. Of course even the smallest film production company makes a website for their film, but not in a way that the ‘masses’ (whoever they are…) encounter them; they are more for the fans who, after seeing the movie, want to learn more about the film. Marshall adresses the issue of the success of films through intertextual commodities by commenting on the success of cult film The Blair Witch Project, as he says even that film used intertextual commodities to promote itself. However, in my opinion, that film had a very different advertising campaign than say, Titanic. The Blair Witch Project became succesful through mouth to mouth advertising, not by an explosive ad campaign as Titanic. The hype around The Blair Witch Project was created by the fact that the film was something new, might actually have happened and worth seeing. The campaign around Titanic was created to make sure everyone would see the movie so that as much profit as possible could be made. Nowadays, most films placed in the intertextual commodity as Marschall sketches it, are the ‘no-brainer’ films made by the big production companies who have the means to promote their films extensively. The independent filmmakers use the media in an other way, not by hyping their own product, but by hoping the film will be advertised by the people who see them and tell their friends about it.

Research concept Participatory culture

L.L.M. Tonk – 0011258

May/june 2004

 

In the first part of the course we paid some attention to legislation on the internet, the so-called cyberlaw. Many websites created by fans (e.g. about their favorite artist, TV show, movie) are in violation of copyright laws because of the fact that the fans create their own stories with copyrighted content: fan-fiction. I was interested in the ways production companies handle these developments and how they position themselves towards the fans of their products.

 

I found an interesting tidbit on the site of AtomFilms. It concerns a Fan Film contest, in which fans of Star Wars can submit their homemade Star Wars movies to win prizes. Lucasfilm and AtomFilms state the following:

“The Star Wars Fan Film Awards, the official destination for spoofs and documentaries created by Star Wars fans, is operated by AtomFilms in partnership with Lucasfilm. Since launch in late 2000, hundreds of fan films have been submitted, with the best entries being selected by reviewers at AtomFilms and Lucasfilm for distribution.

Filmmakers whose entries meet our stringent quality and legal standards receive a commercial distribution contract entitling them to royalty payments based on advertising and sponsorship revenues. Yes, Lucasfilm and AtomFilms are PAYING fans for their passion, dedication, and creative talents. There has truly never been a better time to be a fan -- but then again, there have never been better fans than Star Wars has attracted.”[1]

 

This can be viewed as a break from the traditional ways of the top down structure in many production companies. Lucasfilm embraces the fans as co-producers. How can this be placed in the debates about online legislation? Yochai Benkler pays attention to this debate in his article From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access.

 

In the article, Benkler states that it is still unclear in what way legislation on the internet will develop. There have been cases in which was ruled in favor of more user participation, where the borders between user and producer dissolved. Benkler advocates a policy with minimal media regulation. This way the possibilities for fan participation will broaden. But there are a lot of companies who don’t want to lose control over the content of their products. A.T. Lee has studied the US law and summarized the main problems around fan participation in the form of fan fiction.

 

According to Benkler, what are the difficulties with fan fiction on the internet concerning copyright policies, and how is Lucasfilm handling these issues in the case of the Star Wars Fan Film Awards contest?

 

 

Research methods: Literature study (Benkler’s writings:

http://www.benkler.org/Pub.html)

 

Case study: Star Wars Fan Film Awards. Home-made Fan Movies as Fan Fiction: Official competition, max. 15 min film.

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/spotlight/collections/starwars/

·       All Films (a) must parody the existing Star Wars Universe or be a documentary of the Star Wars fan experience (b)must be appropriate for general audiences, and Films containing nudity, excessive swearing, explicit sexual themes, and/or graphic violence may be considered ineligible for consideration as a Finalist, at the sole discretion of AtomFilms

• If an Entry is playing on another Web site, AtomFilms may in its discretion require that it be removed from such Web site as a condition of acceptance as a Finalist as each Finalist will need to sign an exclusive, all rights, distribution agreement with AtomFilms or be disqualified

Example film: http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/atom_1403

 

Star Wars Fan Film:

http://www.starwars.com/community/news/2004/05/news20040524.html

 

Lee, A.T., Copyright 101 – a brief introduction to copyright for fan fiction authors.

http://www.whoosh.org/issue25/lee1.html

 

FandomFightsBack

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fandomfightsback/

 

Benkler, Y. From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access

Article: Economic perspectives by H.Vogel

Question: If time, and leisure time in particular, is viewed as a commodity, in what way is the entertainment business using it to make profit out of?

To me, it is still a strange concept to view an abstract object like time as a commodity. It brings into question more filosophical questions about what the value of time is, and how you determine its price. Just as the given example in the article about the price per minute for a computergame or a visit to the theatre, it is not easy to make statements about an all-encompassing value of time, because how an individual spends his leisure time is a very personal matter. Therefore, as pointed out in the article, there are many complicated mathematic formulas to calculate with the concept of time as commodity. The entertainment business already has conquered a place in the world economy, but how is leisure time placed in context of economy? The entertainment business is a huge part of the leisure time of many, so part of this leisure time is already represented on the world market in this form. After reading the article it is still not clear to me what new aspect of leisure time now suddenly will change the economy. As stated in the article, US citizens still have as much leisure time as thirty years ago, and the only new development is the increasing involvement of technology. Does this mean the influence of leisure time is suddenly more important to the economy? People spend money in their leisure time, on their hobbies, restaurants, going out, vacations etc. But hasn’t this always been the case? The businesses that try to make profit out of the entertainment industry (like film en music companies), have become more and more visible in the leisure time of the consumer, and it is interesting to analyse this, but the outcome is rather predictable: the entertainment businesses use different factors to influence the spending of leisure time by their potential consumers, and will continue to do so, to find new ways to make profit. Leisure time is indeed a commodity, but more in the eye of the entertainment business than in the eye of the consumer.

 

 

Article: On virtual economies by E. Castronova

Question: I was surprised by the fact that this article makes it sound like the virtual gaming industry will have such a huge impact on the future Earthly economy. What is the difference between the online gaming culture and the trading card game culture that has been present since the seventies/eighties and why would online gaming have such immense implications on the World economy as predicted by Vogel?

Just like the fast-developing game culture on the internet, the trading card game culture has silimar characteristics. Huge amounts of money are being paid for collector edition cards and high prices are being paid for card decks. There are several sorts of card games, like magic: the gathering, dungeons and dragons, pok-e-mon etc, just like there is a diversity among different online games. There are many people from different agegroups, nationalities and classes involved in the games, and the games take up a lot of their leisure time. However, there have been no significant shifts in the world economy due to the participation of millions of people in these kind of card games. Therefore, I think that the scenario being predicted by Vogel is slightly out of proportion. Of course the internet gaming culture brings new questions about legislation and responsibility, but I do not think the consequences of playing games will be noticable in the economy. When compared to the card game culture, as noted above with some similar features, I am convinced that the shift to virtual economy will not be as big as predicted by Vogel.

Article: The Communicative Affordances of Technological Artefacts by I. Hutchby

Question: If any technology can be viewed as a text (p. 22), with the same encoding/decoding model as ‘normal’ texts, how are producer and receiver positioned and determined?

The company developing the technology (e.g. a new kind of communicationform) has certain expectations about how the product must be used. However, the consumer (receiver) might find others forms of usage more appropriate for the product. This way, the product is used in a different way then it was initially developed. For instance, the computer once was developed for mathematics, but now consumers buy the product for multimedia puposes. The consumer is not bound to the restrictions the producer had incorperated in his new product. He chooses his own views in determining the possibillities of the product. However, with the blurring of boundaries between producer and receiver with new technologies like the internet, the consumer becomes the producer. Still, this doesn’t mean that he now has the opportunity to determine the usage of the product by other consumers. So in this case the comparison to the text doesn’t work.

 

Article: Geographies of the information society by M. Dodge & R. Kitchin

Question What is meant by the next passage from Geographies of the information society by M. Dodge & R. Kitchin: Space is one of the principal mediums through which power is administered and controlled (p.36)? If we say that the Western (American) position is domineering the internet, is democracy the dominant force in the space where the Western ideologies of power are reproduced?

It is safe to say that America is a dominant force on the internet. The big corporations and many political groups are very active on the net, and many US citizens visit boards and are active in MUDs. You would think that democracy then would play a large role in those communities, but this is not the case. Many regulations are present in different kinds of users domains, and indiviuals are judged on many aspects. The internet is far from a democracy yet, and the question is if it’ll ever be one. The popular domains are in hands of multinationals with the sole purpose to make as much profit as possible. The internet is more a commercial institution than a democracy. But what does this say? Is the internet not a democracy eventhough Western politics are, or are the Western politics just as commercial as the internet is? I think it centainly is true that the big companies have a great influence not only on the internet, but in the American politics as well. It is pretty blunt to say capitalism rules America, but there certainly is a trend towards such a politics.