Emilie's Blog

Goodbye!

2006-05-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

Hello!

Sadly, this will be my final blog for the semester. I have really enjoyed the whole Virtual Cultures experience, in particular learning about current debates surrounding new media technologies. Before now, I had never realised how much fan-created content actually spurs on sales of games like The Sims to generate profits for enterprise. I also had no idea about the significant financial and emotional investment MMOG players make when signing End User Licence Agreements. In addition, before learning about networked communities and the notion of proximity which has been revolutionised by Information Communication Technologies like the Internet, I never fully considered the world in which we live. Technology is changing and enhancing the way I communicate with my friends, colleagues and family on a day-to-day basis. It has also allowed everyday people like me to become active producers, or ‘produsers’ of content that can be distributed all over the world through the Internet.

However, with the development of such technologies and globalisation, also come negative repercussions like the “digital divide.” This raises serious concerns about the current legislation operating in powerful countries like the US who dominate global political discussions and controls The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN). Issues also exist pertaining to who does and does not have access to new media technologies because they may or may not have the necessary resources or governmental infrastructure.

Although I don’t think these issues will be solved straight away, I believe that they are extremely important to consider and should be central to future technological developments around the world. I think Jackson’s suggestion about the way new media technologies are heading is apt:

While cyberspace may be an information super-highway, I suggest it also embodies the last terrestrial frontier for empire-building. While I am optimistic that new media technologies will continue to provide sites for subversion and ideological tears in the fabric of dominant culture, the cost of access to new media technology as a subject remains prohibitive to many, and may contribute to the enclaves of the technologically plugged-in surrounded by the technologically plugged-out” (2001, 349).

I hope that you have enjoyed reading my posts throughout the semester. I hope to continue updating my blog when I have more time! I hope you have a great day!

Take care,

Em x

References

Jackson, T. ‘Towards a new media aesthetic. In Reading digital culture, ed. D. Trend., 347-353. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Auran and Trainz

2006-05-25T23:14:00.000-07:00

Hi there,

I thought today – after chatting in the tutorial for an hour and a half about Nintendogs, I thought I would talk about something a little more relevant to virtual cultures! Although Nintendogs had a lot to do with proximity and how people in Japan use the game as a virtual replacement for a real pet - I just thought people got a little carried away with the topic!

Moving right along, I just realised that I haven’t made any comments about Dr John Banks’ involvement with Auran as a community moderator for fans of the game Trainz. I think Auran’s encouragement of fans to produce game content is remarkable. Last week in the tutorial, many people in the participatory culture chat room agreed that Auran was just conducting smart business through using fan-created content to enhance their game and revenue intake. We also agreed that whilst some may criticise the initiative as being exploitative and taking advantage of the Trainz fans, at the end of the day even the fans realise that Auran has to function as a commercial enterprise. For example, in the Week 8 lecture, John presented an email a Trainz fan had written to John at Auran, who admitted that whilst he knew Auran was using his creative content to sell the game, his feelings towards such activity were “mixed”. The fan stated: “On one hand I admired the guts to approach a niche market, the concept of customer support, innovative ideas, etc. On the other hand, I thought to see through a thin veil the attempt to exploit the community.”

Once again, I think fan created content is just another great example of participatory culture, or what Marshall (2004, 104) refers to as “…diverse and elaborate ecologies of production.” In the week 3 lecture, John also used to term “indiscrete cultural objects” to describe produser-created content like that developed by fans for Trainz which is characterised as being “open-ended, digitsed, incomplete and part of network flows.” Whilst I think the participatory movement is revolutionary, I have come around to the idea that there are still serious governance implications for such activities involving appropriation, e.g. the stringent End User Licence Agreements for games.

Finally, I would like to finish with a quote that I found by Peter Day in the book Community Informatics: Shaping Computer Mediated Social Relations. I found this quote particularly relevant to current debates we’ve had in KCB201 concerning the “digital divide” being created between rich and poor nations; whether new media technologies shape or determine culture and society; and the open-source ideology which many view as central to participatory cultures:

Powerful techno-economic interests currently shape information society developments. ‘Knowledge economy’ policy makers regard people in terms of their market potential rather than citizens. This consumerist discourse is divisive and fundamentally anti-democratic.” (Day. 2001, 322).

I hope you had fun chatting in the tutorial today – all I can say is that I’m happy that today was our last tutorial because I’m sure the take home exam will be more than challenging! Have a great weekend and I’ll post soon.

Em x

References:
Day, P. 2001. ‘Participating in the information society’, in L. Keeble and B. Loader (Eds) Community Informatics. Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Relations. London and New York: Routledge.

Marshall, D. 2004. New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.

Technological Determinism & The Digital Divide

2006-05-25T01:47:00.000-07:00

Good evening!

Tonight I would like to briefly comment on the lecture given by Dr John Banks on Wednesday night and The technological apparatus of new media cultures reading by David Marshall. What I found interesting about the reading was that Marshall, like Henry Jenkins examines the blurring boundaries of new participatory cultures that are emerging out of new media technologies. In the lecture, Dr John Banks suggested that these new media technologies shape social and cultural outcomes like the participatory culture movement, but do not determine them. Banks’ ideas are reflected in the Marshall reading, who also cites the flaws in the notion of ‘technological determinism’, developed by Marshall McLuhan. Basically this term refers to the idea that technological change will directly determine and forever change the way in which society will operate. The two “principal weaknesses” Marshall (2004, 31) cites in McLuhan’s technological determinist ideology concern:

1) “First of all in McLuhan’s case, it sets up the communication form as all powerful in its capacity to transform the social world. Like his precursor, Harold Adam Innis, who wrote about the rise and fall of empires within the context of dominant technologies of communication (Innis, 1950, 1951), McLuhan places too much importance on one factor in shaping the society”; and

2) “Second, and this is related to the first weakness, McLuhan’s overemphasis on the medium allows him to overlook political and economic forces that have allowed the emergence for particular ends of specific media technologies” (Marshall. 2004, 32).

I think the two weaknesses that Marshall points out in the technological determinist theory are valid, particularly because of Galloway’s (2004) suggestions that technology is inherently political and is never neutral. Therefore, as Marshall (2004, 35) suggests, the networked communities which have been created by the new media technologies like the Internet have created a “digital divide” globally between those who have access to the Internet and those who don’t. For example, Marshall (2004, 25) states: “The technological apparatus thus must be seen as modalized around exclusion as much as access and inclusion.” And as John said in the lecture, although the idea of networked communities and participatory cultures may be a reality in Western cultures, less than 10% of the world’s population has access to the Internet. Unfortunately, I think this alarming figure is a direct result of globalisation – and the desire for the world’s richest, most educated countries like Australia, Japan and America to be more technologically advanced than others. I think this idea from Marshall is poignant regarding the adverse effect globalisation is having in regards to new media technologies: “The globalisation that new media represents also excludes from participation large sectors of the contemporary world” (2004, 25). It is horrible that huge countries like India and Africa are being excluded from such exciting technological developments like the World Wide Web because they are lacking in resources and the necessary infrastructure. Hopefully in the future, such countries will be given access to new media technologies so that networked communities can be extended on a large global scale. However, as Marshall (2004, 35) comments “the experience of new media culture in the way that we have described it is fundamentally banded and branded with this socio-economic divide.”

I hope that you enjoyed reading this! I really enjoyed Marshall’s take on the idea of emerging media technologies and the real effect they are having in shaping the real social and cultural world. I hope you have a great night and I’ll post again soon!

Em x

References

Galloway, A. 2004. 'Institutionalization', in Protocol. How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Marshall, D. 2004. 'The technological apparatus of new media cultures', in New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.

Produser Websites

2006-05-21T19:14:00.000-07:00

Hello!

I apologise for not posting all weekend but I had to attend a wedding! I had planned to attend before the semester even started, therefore as expected it ended up being right when assessment starts getting crazy! Murphy’s law isn’t it! Anyway, down to business – last week I attended a lecture given by Axel Bruns for another one of my subjects (Media and Society). Fortunately for me, it was about post-modern communication and new technologies – similar to the content I have been learning in KCB201. Therefore, I thought I would apply the knowledge I learnt in the lecture and the material we have covered so far in this unit to discuss some contemporary ‘produser’ websites that have popped up in recent years.

The sites of active media production by audiences mentioned by Mr Bruns in the lecture included Technorati, Wikipedia, Flickr and Slashdot. Although there were a few more listed, I thought I would discuss these four sites to explain how they are a reflection of modern produsage activities. In these sites, the communities have a fluid, heterarchical and flat structure where leaders change often and production processes are less controlled than those used by traditional media outlets.

Firstly, I will focus on Technorati, which is an extremely popular Internet search engine for searching web blogs. Currently, there are approximately “…37 million blogs in the works, with a new blog created every second, according to a report by David Sifry, founder of Technorati” (cited in Regan, 2006). Therefore, Technorati is a key site of collaborative user-led activity where users skip the gatekeeper to publish their own information, creative ideas and knowledge on their blogs for others to view, comment on and use. Further, according to a study conducted for Jupiter Research about European blog users, “…blogs have a "disproportionately large influence" on society” (cited in Regan, 2006). I think what is interesting here about this blogging trend is that it has allowed the former “passive” audience a place for them to interactively engage with others concerning issues that were once force-fed to them via mass media. The Jupiter Research study also found that although "active users" only make up a small proportion of overall Internet users, “they were starting to dominate public discussions and even have an impact on people's buying habits” (cited in Regan, 2006).

Secondly, Wikipedia is a great example of postmodern media culture. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, entirely produced by its users, where anyone can edit (almost) any page and there is no single producer/distributor to control content. I think the Wikipedia is a great invention because the information published is never finished and no one point of view takes precedence. Axel Bruns used the term ‘redaction’, (a characteristic of produsage activity) to describe the process in which produsers can take pieces of other people’s Intellectual Property and incorporate it into their own work. This process is evident on Wikipedia, where “the redaction history of pages is visible to all users” (Bruns, 2006).

Finally, I want to briefly comment on Flickr and Slashdot. The Flickr website is a great example of produsage activity and allows users to share photo-file with each other online. I just read an awesome example of how Flickr has been incorporated into a new technology, which helps programs communicate with each other. According to Lamb (2006) the Application Program Interface “…allows Google, Amazon, and Yahoo to make their technologies more open, letting people create "mashups."” For example, “Someone might combine Google Maps with real estate listings to show prices and locations of houses for sale, or combine it with the Flickr photo service to show where photos have been taken” (Lamb, 2006). Moreover, Slashdot is an alternate media source on the Internet similar to IndyMedia, which encourages users to generate their own news content and publish it on the website to other users. Subtitled “News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters,” Slashdot is a visitor-driven blog that focuses heavily on open-source publishing technologies like Linux.

After reviewing these four produsage sites, it is evident that with technology, the audience has emerged as a powerful force. In New Media Cultures, ‘Goldsmith and O’Regan explain that we can no longer think of the viewer in the era of the Internet: “Interactivity, at some levels, transforms the relation between the consumer and producer as the "viewer" is intimately involved in mixing or producing their screen media experience”’ (cited in Marshall. 2004, 16). I think the poignancy of this quote sums this post up for me! I hope you enjoyed reading it, as much as I enjoyed finding out all these new facts! Have a great day :)

Em x

References

Bruns, A. (2006, May 18). “Postmodern Communication and New Technologies: Produsers and DIY Media”, Brisbane:QUT. [KCB102 Media and Society Lecture Week Eleven].

Lamb, G. April 2006. Dream applications' start to come true on the Web ; Technology is catching up to the grand ideas of the pre-dotcom bust. Result: a new 'gold rush'. The Christian Science Monitor, pg. 14. (accessed May 22, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Marshall, D. 2004. New Media Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.

Regan, T. 2006. Blogs now have a world of influence. The Christian Science Monitor, pg. 14. (accessed May 22, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Networked Communities

2006-05-17T23:32:00.000-07:00

This afternoon, I would like to discuss some ideas regarding how communities exist in modern society and how technology has transformed the way in which they operate. As I have mentioned in previous posts, media convergence has lead to the fragmentation of media and audiences. Therefore, using the idea of ‘audiences’ as ‘communities’, it is obvious that media fragmentation has affected the way in which people communicate within communities. In this week’s reading, Barry Wellman (cited in Keeble and Loader. 2001, 17) refers to communities as “networked societies”, where “boundaries are permeable, interactions are with diverse others, connections switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies can be flatter and recursive.” Wellman also cites Manuel Castells’ idea that “class pertains to relations of production and reproduction – including communities.” This basically means that the level of access one has to resources and technology fluctuates with their structural position, or social class in community networks.

Therefore, the whole notion of the ‘networked community’ has become a real issue for impoverished people around the world. Due to the lack of infrastructure and resources, these groups are being excluded from networked communities, which have evolved alongside technological development and ICT applications such as the Internet. However, according to Hopkins (2005) ‘much time and money has been committed by governments, private business, and the third sector over the last 5 years in establishing opportunities for underserved populations to gain access to new forms of information and communication technologies, in an effort to overcome the so-called "digital divide."’ A good example of this was mentioned by Marcus Foth in this week’s lecture, whereby a single high-rise public housing estate was constructed in Williamstown, Melbourne. Members of varying classes living in this “networked community” were connected, not only by place but also were offered a free Internet connection so that they could communicate in the virtual world. However, as soon as the Internet connection was cut, community members disbanded and the Williamstown project failed abysmally.

I think that attempts to create “networked communities” between people of varying classes are admirable. However, assimilating completely different people into a collective group will always be tedious, specifically because new media technologies have encouraged individual freedom. I think the point Marcus made in the lecture about smaller groups having higher levels of social capital than bigger communities is poignant. Although these smaller groups are more exclusionary, they have a greater ability “…to organize and mobilize effectively for collective action because they have high levels of social trust, dense social networks, and well-established norms of mutuality” (Kavanaugh, et al. 2005).

I hope that this post has provided you with greater insight about networked communities and the inherently complex social structures within them! I promise to post again this week but I have been extremely busy with uni work so I apologise!

Until next time, take care.

Em x

References

Hopkins, L. 2005. Making a Community Network Sustainable: The Future of the Wired High Rise. Information Society, 21 (5): 379. (accessed May 18, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Kavanaugh, et al. 2005. Weak Ties in Networked Communities. Information Society, 21 (2): 119. (accessed May 18, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Wellman, B. 2001. ‘Physical place and cyberspace. The rise of networked individualism’, in, L. Keeble and B. Loader (Eds) Community Informatics. Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Relations, London, New York: Routledge.

Participatory Cultures

2006-05-11T22:52:00.000-07:00

Hello!

I am a little tired today after yesterday’s massive effort! I also had to go shopping to buy a mother’s day present, which wasn’t exactly as easy as it sounds! My sister and I just couldn’t decide which shade of pink was right. Such a dilemma! Anyway, considering I haven’t touched on Jenkins’ ideas about the emergence of ‘participatory cultures’ within the New Media Economy, I thought I would investigate some research studies. Basically, participatory cultures have emerged with the evolution of new media technologies. These technologies are being marketed and used by consumers (irrespective of their skill level) and are now cheaper and easier to access than ever before. As I discussed in an earlier post, ‘prosumer’ and ‘produser’ are becoming popular buzz words, reflecting the blurring of lines defining media producers and consumers. Henry Jenkins (2004) refers to prosumers using new media technology as “amateur artists” whose creative work “…should be valued on its own terms, judged by the criteria of the subcultures within which these works get produced and circulated.”

Further, as John Banks mentioned in the Week Seven lecture, cultural critic Henry Jenkins suggests in his book Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, that “…the devoted viewers of television programs like Star Trek have created their own unique fan culture around their favoured media texts” (cited in Pustz, 1998). For example, some ‘devoted viewers’ have become so obsessed with shows like Star Trek that they have created their own films based on the show.

Another effective illustration of participatory culture activity is evident in the small-scale network, DTV, who is experimenting with Internet broadcasts of TV programs, “…using the same free-to-download open source approach to its software that spawned the Linux operating system and the Firefox web browser” (Anderson, 2005). Posing a threat to big TV companies around the world, DTV’s authors “have banded together under the banner of a fledgling non-profit organization called the Participatory Culture Foundation ” (Anderson, 2005). This website is really interesting as a reflection of the whole participatory culture movement and the types of activists supporting it.

Overall I think, like John Banks that Henry Jenkins views the idea of prosumers revolutionising the capitalist world a little too optimistically. For example, Jenkins states:

Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with their significant others. The promises of this new media environment open up expectations of a freer flow of ideas and content.”

Whilst I believe that in the near future we will witness a stronger collaborative relationship between enterprise and consumers, yet at the end of the day, if people aren’t being paid to create work, they won’t do it. As I have discussed in earlier posts, there are huge legal issues involved with game and music fans using Copyrighted material to appropriate or imitate original creative works. I hope that the examples I have shown today have provided you with some idea of what is happening between media producers and consumers in the current media environment! Have an awesome weekend, and I’ll post very soon!

Em x

References
Anderson, M. 2005. Internet TV at a crucial fork in the road. New Scientist, 188 (2529): pp.30-32. (accessed May 12, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple Databases).

Jenkins, H. 2004. Taking media into our own hands. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=biotech&sc=&id=13905&pg=2 (accessed May 12, 2006).

Jenkins, H. 2005. Welcome to convergence culture. http://www.receiver.vodafone.com/12/articles/pdf/12_01.pdf (accessed May 12, 2006).

Pustz, M. 1998. Fanboys and true believers: Comic book reading communities and the creation of culture. The University of Iowa, 588 pgs. (accessed May 12, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple Databases).

Internet Governance

2006-05-10T23:24:00.000-07:00

Good Afternoon!

Is it just me, or am I becoming addicted to blogging today? I think it has taken me about 12 hours for last night’s lecture about protocol and Internet regulation to sink in. After attempting the reading before the lecture, I walked into the room expecting to be totally confused. Surprisingly, I wasn’t too frazzled but it has taken me awhile to understand the complex issues that surround governing the Internet.

Whilst the Internet’s architecture appears to be ‘decentralised, non-hierarchical and particpatory’, encouraging open-source and peer-to-peer activities, the reality is in fact the complete opposite (Banks, 2006). In the reading, Galloway (2005, 142) contends with this idea, suggesting that “the founding principle of the Internet is control, not freedom. Control has existed from the beginning.” As John Banks mentioned in the lecture, power relationships are in fact embedded in technologies. John also mentioned that contemporary control issues associated with the Internet are largely a product of the ‘Political Economy’. Therefore, one can observe that the Internet – as a reflection of Western capitalism, is controlled by vested corporate interests, which encourage the exclusion of social groups from the distribution of creative knowledge, intellect and information.

Furthermore, Copyright and Intellectual Property legislation works very effectively to support enterprise monopolising Internet governance. As Christina Spurgeon mentioned in the lecture last week, these ‘Walled Gardens’ approaches work in favour of commercial enterprise, particularly those who create anti-competitive networks that ‘lock-in’ customers. For example, Time Warner, the parent company of AOL was able to take advantage of the network effects theory by making switching costs so high that customers were ‘locked-in’ to the company just because of the sheer inconvenience to change providers. Companies such as these also rely on network externalities like encouraging their users to invite their friends just so switching costs are increased.

Furthermore,The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) acts as the sole regulatory body on the Internet and is controlled by the US Government. I think this is totally unfair and unrepresentative of global interests, irrespective of the working groups that have been developed to represent minority interests at the Information Society World Summits. Essentially, even after community and welfare group opinions are presented at these Summits, the US Government still has the final control over ICAAN and its operations. I also agree with Galloway in that technical issues (e.g. Internet Protocol/Transmission Control Protocol and the Domain Name System) cannot be extracted from public policy issues (e.g. who can and can’t access the Internet) within Internet Governance Forums because in the real world these two issues must co-exist.

Finally, I support the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IETF is a large, open organisation comprised of technology experts who develop technical standards for the Internet to ensure its smooth evolution. I also think that the Internet Society is also a great organisation that supports the development of the Internet, without imposing strict legislation supporting the interests of commercial enterprise.

Although this lecture was a little harder to wrap my head around, I found it very useful. I am becoming more appreciative of Australia, particularly because we are a well-developed nation and are offered many privileges – including having access to the Internet! I hope you have a great evening!

Em x

References

Galloway, A. (2004). 'Insitutionalization', in, Protocol. How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Machinima

2006-05-10T20:08:00.000-07:00

Good morning!

Today I would like to talk a little bit about machinima. Although this was covered in the lecture Dr John Banks gave in week three, I found it interesting and definitely worthwhile mentioning! Machinima, also known as ‘machine cinema’ has become increasingly popular amongst MMOG and many other gaming fans across the world. According to Jenkins (2004), the emergence of Machinima, or 3-D digital animation created by players in real time using game engines, is representative of the shift in commercial power from media producers to consumers. The use of game engines in Machinima is extremely time and cost effective, allowing players to create all different types of movie narratives through using tools provided within games and redesigning games to change backgrounds, textures, characters and props (Jenkins, 2004). There are also organisations that support the development of machinima art, for example The Academy of Machinima Arts and Sciences. Examples of contemporary machinima include My Trip to Liberty City by Jim Munroe and based on Grand Theft Auto 3; Red vs. Blue, a science-fiction comedy based on Halo; and The Strangerhood - a machinima sitcom based on The Sims 2 (Jenkins, 2004; Moltenbrey, 2005; Stern, 2005). Whilst the narrative of each of these machinima differs, I think the application of using pre-existing art tools (e.g. camera angle, demo recording) and resources (e.g. skins, levels) to create characters, settings and movement is extremely clever.

Unfortunately, legal issues have arisen whereby game enterprise has been dissatisfied with the way machinima directors have played out narratives between characters. This is illustrated in another popular machinima movie called Not Just Another Love Story. Created by a World of Warcraft fan, Tristan Pope, the machinima film’s distribution has caused great controversy, particularly in regards to the appropriation of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law infringement. In response to such suggestions, Pope stated on his website, Crafting Worlds,“I only executed what the pixels in World of Warcraft suggest …” (cited in Lowood, 2005).
However, World of Warcraft publisher Blizzard was definitely unhappy about the events that unfold within Not Just a Love Story’s narrative. Pope uses his Troll character, Tristanmon as the protagonist who falls in love with a human female character and ends up marrying her. Using the game’s editing tools, Pope implies sexual activities between the two characters. Blizzard took great issue with Pope’s implication of sexual acts – particularly because a large fan base of the game is minors. Additionally, in the real game, Horde characters (e.g. Trolls) and Alliance characters (e.g. Humans) are enemies, whereas in the machinima film, these characters are friends and even attend a collaborative rave party. Therefore, the game-twist Pope created goes totally against the original narrative developed by Blizzard for the game. In response to Blizzard’s upset, “rather than asserting his right to subvert the game’s content, Pope turned this argument on its head by reasoning that he had in fact created nothing” (Lowood, 2005). Eager to support its fan base, Blizzard did not ban Pope from using the game, yet according to Lowood (2005), it caused ‘Blizzard to cite the user agreement concerning language or images that are “pornographic in nature” and lock the discussion thread’ in which the film was being distributed. ‘Blizzard also barred links to any of the movie’s download sites in subsequent discussion threads’ (Lowood, 2005).

When taking the average age of World of Warcraft’s players into consideration, I do not believe the actions Blizzard took were unnecessary or harsh. Their actions are reflective of how protocol controls the architecture of community networks, even in the ‘decentralised’ realms of the Internet. However, if I were a parent, I don’t think I’d want my child watching characters performing ‘artistic’ sexual favours to each other! I think Henry Lowood (2005) sums up the Not Just Another Love Story episode succinctly:

By acting as a lightning-rod for commentary on the contested boundary between developer and player control of a complex, multiplayer game world, Pope’s “Not Just Another Love Story” demonstrated that game movies could function as a medium for public discussion and negotiation of issues important to the player community.”

I hope that I have provided some insight to the legal issues surrounding the gaming world and the emergence of Machinima as an emerging form of artistic film-making. Hope you have a lovely day and I’ll post to you soon!

Em :)

References
Jenkins, H. 2004. Taking Media in Our Own Hands. http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_13905,312,p2.html (accessed May 10, 2006).

Lowood, H. 2005. Story-Line, Dance/Music or PVP? Game Movies and Performance in World of Warcraft. http://www.aestheticsofplay.org/lowood.php (accessed May 11, 2006).

Moltenbrey, K. 2005. ‘Out of Character’, Computer Graphics World, 28 (11): 24-28. (accessed May 10, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Stern, A. 2005. Inside Rooster Teeth. http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/2005/08/10/inside-rooster-teeth/ (accessed May 10, 2006).

Media Convergence

2006-05-09T21:31:00.000-07:00

Hi there,

Today I will discuss the increasingly popular notion of media convergence, which has resulted in the fragmentation of audiences and media, consequently disrupting the volatile relationship between those who produce and consume it. Schatsky (2006) points out that “as an expanding array of media and entertainment choices makes claims on consumers' attention, the amount of time they spend with traditional media…is declining” in favour of newer, more customised media like the Internet and video games. Subsequently, in line with audience shifts, media production is also becoming fragmented. For example, “individual songs and episodes of TV series are available for sale via download” on websites such as
Apple iTunes and “digital feeds of newspaper and magazine content allow consumers to read parts of a publication out of context without ever seeing the rest.” (Schatsky, 2006).

This leads me to my next example of media convergence currently occuring in the Australian magazine industry. I am an avid reader of women’s fashion and cooking (don’t laugh) magazines, including Madison,Shop Til You Drop, Cosmopolitan, Donna Hay and Australian Good Taste. After searching the Internet, it was no surprise to find that each of these magazines have supporting websites.

I believe that these magazine websites work effectively, not only to further support and promote the print version, but also to overcome any threat of new technologies. The Australian Women’s Weekly editor Deborah Thomas argues “…the issue is not about technology replacing the traditional magazine format, but more about how technology is likely to enhance it” (cited in The e-future of magazines, 2004). Better Homes & Gardens editor Julia Zaetta agrees, and suggests the Internet cannot replace the print medium because humans attach a sense of “intimacy” to paper (cited in The e-future of magazines, 2004).

Furthermore, Turner and Cunningham (2004, 5) argue that the notion of convergence is driving the reformation of contemporary media and communication and use it to describe the “…dissolving distinctions between media systems, media content and the resulting trade between systems”. For example, soft or tabloid content like lifestyle news usually featured in newspapers is converging with weekly magazines, websites and web blogs. Pink Is The New Blog has raised considerable attention as a popular blog about celebrity gossip, paparazzi photos and fashion. The blog’s author, Trent, is known for his outlandish and rather bitchy criticisms of celebrities in America. For example, his latest entry is entitled “Two too Many” about Britney Spears being pregnant again with her second child. Trent claims to have confirmation of his gossip from celebrity gossip magazine, People. I suggest you check out his site, it is great for a laugh, and a free way to access celebrity gossip!

I hope you have enjoyed today’s post! Have a good day :)

Emilie x

References

Cunningham, S. and G. Turner. (eds) 2002. The Media and Communications in Australia. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Schatsky, D. 2006. ‘The Media Industry Is Falling to Pieces.’ Television Week, 25 (5): 10. (accessed May 9, 2006 from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

The e-future of magazines. 2004. B&T Weekly, September 9, 2004. (accessed May 10, 2006 from Factiva.com: Online Newspaper database).

Fairfux Presentation

2006-05-04T23:17:00.000-07:00

Well hello again!

I just wanted to write a quick little post (which as you know, are never really 'quick') about the online communities presented in the tutorial this afternoon. I found the first group’s presentation about an alternative media online community entitled Fairfux really creative. Using a model similar to Crikey, Fairfux is primarily aimed at journalism students and media industry professionals. Its mission statement was to provide an alternative and collaborative media environment, encouraging its users to actively read, respond and interact with political news, images, cartoons and debates. I think this mission statement works well with Amy Jo Kim’s (2000) ideas regarding the importance of defining the specific purpose of your online community. Kim (2000, 1) states that “articulating your purpose up front will help your focus your thinking and create a coherent, compelling and successful Web community.” I think that this group justified their definition of Fairfux, through confirming its Unique Selling Proposition (USP), or point of difference between alternative-media competitors such as Crikey and IndyMedia. The group addressed Fairfax’s USP in their aim to create an objective community environment, which encourages diversity of opinions concerning Australia media policy legislation. Fairfux had four main areas within their site, which I think worked effectively to support the community’s purpose. These areas included:

a)Articles – where users can view up-to-date news articles written by the industry professionals employed by the site and other users;
b)Real-time chat – where users can correspond with each other in a modernised format similar to talk back radio;
c)Humour – where users can view a gallery of political cartoons and jokes; and
d)Politics – where users can comment on forums and vote on polls concerning a number of media and political issues.

The group also suggested that these areas would most likely expand as the community expanded. For example, as the Fairfux grows, new sub-groups may emerge, who are bound by strong left and right wing political views. In Community Building on the Web, Amy Jo Kim suggests that this is necessary for the longevity of online communities like Fairfux as “successful online communities evolve to keep pace with the changing needs of members and owners” (2000, 3).

Although these guys went way over the time limit, I really enjoyed their presentation. Unfortunately, after today there will be no more presentations I can comment on! I hope you enjoyed this post, I’m sure you were riveted. ;) Until my next edition, have a great weekend!

Em x

References

Kim, Amy Jo. 2000. 'Purpose', in, Community Building on the Web, Berkeley: Peachpit Press, pp.1-26.

Creative Commons

2006-05-04T18:52:00.000-07:00

Hello!

Today I would like to discuss the lecture presented by Christina Spurgeon regarding the role of Intellectual Property, Copyright law and Creative Commons licences have in affecting the creation and distribution of creative works, knowledge and information. It seems that Creative Commons “is a new system, built within Copyright law, that allows you to share your creations with others and use music, movies, images, and text online that's been marked with a Creative Commons license” (Creative Commons Organisation, 2006). Subsequently, content creators can now allow their work to be freely accessed and/or used at their discretion by parties in the public domain. For example, in 1992 music publisher Warner-Chappel Music and Island Records sued Negativland and SST Records Ltd for the unauthorised and unattributed sampling of U2's song 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for' (Negativland, cited in Rimmer, 2005). After litigation, Negativland was forced to pay U2 $25,000, but they still remained firm in their argument that:

In the isolated medium of the Internet, and in the suggestion of fair use for collage, we are being guided by new technologies to reacquaint ourselves with cultural urges toward a rejuvenated public domain, right here in the twenty-first century (Negativland, cited in Rimmer, 2005)

Negativland definitely has a point, particularly because artistic appropriation is necessary for the evolution of culture. I also believe that such agreements are vital for the longevity of innovation and creativity, so that ideas can be shared, not controlled by the agenda of commercial enterprise.

Furthermore, as opposed to Copyright Law, which can lock-up ideas from public use and access for up to seventy years, Creative Commons licences are supportive of open-source approaches, which encourage freely shared information within the ‘Networked Information Society.’ Yochai Benkler (2006) highlights that such ‘Copyleft’ IP approaches, have been used by ‘thousands of loosely networked, free software developers” to create successful programs like the “…massive operating system GNU/Linux” that have great economic potential. In the lecture, Ms Spurgeon also demonstrated the benefits of Creative Commons licences by showing a clever cartoon on the Creative Commons Organisation’s website. What I found interesting from this cartoon is that people who use other’s creative work either within theirs, or add something to it, can make money from such activities. For example, by “skipping the intermediaries”, bass guitarist Steve MacDonald from the band called the ‘Red Cross’, added bass lines to the White Stripes album, then released mp3 tracks on his band’s website. He also renamed the original White Stripes album, White Blood Cells to Red Blood Cells and released it under Copyright law to make money. Steve even ran into Jack White, from the White Stripes who gave him spoken consent to continue his creative co-authorship with them.

Additionally, I believe that commons-based approaches also support the role of the produser in collaborative works between consumers and enterprise. It allows people to take fragments of knowledge to make or produce new creative pieces of cultural information. For example, my sister Charlotte quite often creates new playlists on her iPod using downloaded music from the online file-sharing program, Limewire. Charlotte also uses these downloaded songs to burn her own music compilations on CDs. In the lecture, Christina suggested this type of ‘produser’ activity is creating tensions within current Copyright Law regulations. These tensions primarily relate to:
a)Distribution (e.g. Napster & p2p Networking); and
b)Remixing (e.g. DJ Danger Mouse, The Grey Album).

Finally, I would just like to add that Creative Commons approaches are just another outcome of the evolution of the Networked Society, which are changing the way information, creativity and innovation is distributed throughout the New Economy. I will finish this post with a poignant quote by Yochai Benkler (2006) which I think explains these changes:

"This new freedom holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere."

Until next time, take care and have a great day!
Em x
References

Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_1.pdf (accessed May 4, 2006).

Creative Commons Organisation. 2006. Learn more about creative commons. http://creativecommons.org/learnmore (accessed May 5, 2006).

Rimmer, M. 2005. The Grey Album: Copyright Law and Digital Sampling. Media International Australia, No. 114, February, pp 40-53

Mia the Band

2006-04-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

Hi there,

Today – being a public holiday and all – I would like to write something short and sweet! Just recently, Mia, my manager at work set up a website about her folk/rock band. I have added her as a link on my page, under Mia the Band. I think Mia’s website is a really great example of the whole produser idea. As John Banks put it in the KCB201 Week 3 Lecture, the Internet is now providing networked connectivity between consumers and producers. For example, Mia, a massive consumer of music media, established her website as a point of connectivity between other music producers like herself. Mia also created the website as a destination for her fans, by providing free downloads of her music. Similar to the way Arctic Monkeys developed their following, Mia has allowed free distribution of her work so that it can be shared by people around the world.

Additionally, Mia’s website effectively illustrates the notion of the New Media Economy, or a convergence between traditional media forms like music with Information Communication Technologies like the Internet. For example, Mia has created an electronic press kit, specifically for clients, or people interested in her work. Using this kit, she has received gigs around Brisbane and surrounding areas.

Overall, I think Mia’s website it just another example of the dissolving distinctions between media producers and media consumers. Through using music technology to develop sound clips and the Internet as a promotional platform, Mia’s band has flourished. She has now formed networks of relationships with fans, local and international bands and other people with similar music interests. If you would like to listen to her music, just go to her website. Alternatively, if you would like to experience Mia the Band live, her gigs are posted on the site regularly. I hope you have a great day off and I’ll post again soon!

Em x

Online Community Presentation

2006-04-27T22:55:00.000-07:00

Hello again!

I’m so sorry I haven’t made a post for so long, Easter came around and so did a 3000 word take home exam for Media Audiences which was absolutely life changing (can you sense the sarcasm here). Anyway, onto more exciting news, today I presented my group online community proposal. To be frank, I think the other students in our class judged our idea of having a social community for QUT online, entitled 'QUT Socialite', rather harshly. As QUT is an academic institution, it would be near impossible for students to communicate on a level completely external from what they have in common – their academic studies! Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that whilst ‘QUT Socialite’ proposed to foster relationships between QUT staff and students, QUT policies and procedures like the End User Licence Agreement apply to members. Within the confines of these regulations, we were criticised for creating the community less social and more academic. However, I believe that these regulations are necessary for social relationships and networks to evolve, because they protect member privacy.

My tutor, John Banks also suggested that perhaps for 'QUT Socialite' to work more effectively, it should operate on separate website, external from the QUT enterprise. However, for this website to maintain any affiliation with the QUT brand and the student guild, one assumes that students or staff that publish defamatory comments about members will be dealt with according to a similar set of community rules as 'QUT Socialite'. Overall, I just wanted to reinforce the idea that our group suggested 'QUT Socialite' as a welcoming place for students and staff to hang out, chat and become actual friends. The idea did not evolve as a place where QUT staff and students could criticise each other and pay out their uni degrees. It was really disappointing to realise that people in our class wouldn’t be supportive of the community, particularly because I believe there is a real opportunity for its development! Until next time, have a great weekend! I promise to blog soon :)

Em x

Virtual Community Report

2006-04-10T21:18:00.000-07:00

Community Participation Task: Virtual Community Report

The online community I have joined is called Discuss Cooking. I joined this group as it was the least crude and the most interesting one I could find. My registered username as an 'assistant chef' is em_wight - very creative! :) What makes Discuss Cooking a successful community lies inherently in its aim to bring people together who share a common interest in cooking. Discuss Cooking’s aim is also reflected in its mission statement: ‘Discover Cooking. Discuss Life.’ There are approximately fifty forums within the Discuss Cooking Community, which enable its five thousand, four hundred and fifty-three members to create relationships through sharing ideas, photos and recipes. Forum themes range from ‘Canning and Preserving’ and ‘Entertaining, Special Events and Party Planning’ to ‘Health, Nutrition and Special Diets’ and ‘Desserts, Sweets and Baking.’ Discuss Cooking also has a links page where members can place a link to the Discuss Cooking from their own personal website, or alternatively, they can place their website URL on the page so other members can access their information. The links page also includes recipe websites and other general cooking information sites.

Additionally, Discuss Cooking has been running for six years and is part of Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. The rules within the community are determined by the owners who “…reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason” (Discuss Cooking, 2006). Discuss Cooking employs both administrators and moderators to ensure the elimination of obscene, threatening or political discussions within its discussion forums. I believe it is imperative for the longevity of the community that social governance policies such as these are employed so that members feel safe to discuss their ideas and opinions freely. According to Preece (cited in Lazar and Preece, 2002) “communities with good sociability have social policies that support the community’s purpose and are understandable, socially acceptable and practicable.”

Furthermore, the type of people who belong to Discuss Cooking are both male and female, typically aged around thirty years and older. Some of these members work as chefs in the food industry and some just have a passion for cooking. I believe these people keep coming back because the community platform enhances their drive and passion for cooking. The Discuss Cooking site is very easy to navigate and provides members with a sense of belonging through a common interest they share. The site administrators and members are also very welcoming to 'New-Bees' like myself. For example, on April 9, I made my first post and I received five responses within two days.

Overall, I think Discuss Cooking works effectively as both a financial and social enterprise. Although a number of Google advertisers sponsor the community site such as the American Diabetes Help Centre and Amazon this does not inhibit one’s Discuss Cooking experience. I believe that Discuss Cooking is a successful online community, primarily because it operates in a culture of trust where members and guests can access and distribute information not only about themselves but also about a shared purpose. This success is not only reflected in the sheer number of people around the world that are members, but also because it has been running for six years.

I hope that my comments about Discuss Cooking have been somewhat insightful. Perhaps if you feel like cooking in the near future, you might want to sign up to get some great ideas like I did for my Mum’s dinner party. Until next time, take care!

Emilie x

References

Discuss Cooking. 2006. Discuss Cooking Rules. http://www.discusscooking.com/forums/register.php (accessed April 7, 2006).

Lazaar, J and J. Preece. 2002. Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and Success Factors. http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/8%20herre_chapter.pdf (accessed April 11, 2006).

The MMOG Debate

2006-04-10T00:28:00.000-07:00

Hi there,

This week I would like to write a little bit about Sal Humphrey’s (2005) journal article entitled Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. I would also like to make a few points in reference to the lecture she gave last week about gamers’ rights, particularly those who play Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOG) like EverQuest and World of Warcraft.

Firstly, in the lecture Sal Humphrey suggested that an MMOG is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. In response to this idea, I agree. MMOGs are social arenas where players collaborate to take on challenges within the game, whilst forming binding relationships with each other. Therefore, in these virtual spaces, players receive rewards for being sociable. For example, in EverQuest, if a raid is successful, the players involved become more powerful. What I take issue with here is that for some people, these MMOGs are not just fun games of social interactivity. For some players, these games in fact become a central part of their day-to-day existence, where forty to fifty hours per week is invested inside a virtual world. Sal suggested that these player’s identities are not fixed within the game, nor are they fixed in the external world. The problem I have with this argument is that these players, who are hardcore addicts, are in fact living their life through a fantastical identity, which doesn’t exist in the real world.

Furthermore, Sal argued that players such as these, who have invested an extraordinary amount of time, money and emotion in these MMOGs should be entitled to greater legal freedom. At present, End User Licence Agreements are fixed, in favour of the enterprise. This has caused many problems within what Ms Humphrey refers to as “owned proprietary worlds” where users have been banned without explanation or negotiation. This agreement also forbids players to sell their characters for money on auction sites like eBay after they have invested time building them up. In her journal article Humphrey (2005, 37) states that the structural differences presented by online multi-user games like EverQuest compared with the distribution of “fixed” texts such as Napster have created new tensions in the relationship between commerce and culture. This means that because players are now producing free content for these games and building social infrastructures such as guilds, the line between what an enterprise can claim as Intellectual Property, and what actually belongs to the user is harder to define.

Additionally, like Ms Humphrey, I believe that the balance of power weighs too heavily in favour of companies like Sony Entertainment, who have the power to cancel a loyal player’s subscription for any reason at any given time. However, it is important for players to understand that without the enterprise, their worlds would never exist. It is important to respect the rules and regulations of any infrastructure you become a member of, whether that is a school, university, virtual space or workplace. Without these codes of conduct, there would be no order. I believe that the current legislation needs to be restructured which gives players greater ownership of their identity within the game and the content they produce. In doing so, hopefully gamers and enterprise can work in a collaborative relationship to ensure that Massively Multiplayer Online Games remain a fun and enjoyable experience for all.

I am sorry that this entry is so long! I got really involved in Ms Humphrey’s ideas because I found that she took a very extreme approach to gamers and their activities. I hope that you didn’t find this too lengthy to read! Until next time, take care!

Emilie x

References
Humphrey, S. 2005. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 12 (1):36-50.

The Network Society

2006-04-02T16:01:00.000-07:00

Hello again!

Today I thought I would cover some of Castells' ideas mentioned in the Week 2 lecture concerning 'The Network Society'. What I found particularly interesting in Manuel Castells' theory (a Professor of Sociology at the University of California) is how networks on the Internet are affecting the way people communicate in modern society. The main crux of his theory lies within the importance of these networks of learning, entertainment, political activism, barter and exchange. (Leadbeater, 2001). Castell's idea of the networked society can not only be applied to social relationships and how we communicate with our friends, lovers and family on a day-to-day basis, but also how enterprises operate to do business. Castells also developed the notion of "Portfolios of Sociability" - which basically refers to how one keeps in contact with friends, family, colleagues etc. through these networks. For example, instead of just writing emails, people can now set up their own web blog where they can update images and information daily, place videos of themselves doing particular activities or commenting on what they've been up to, provide programs on their sites that others can download and develop new technologies with other Internet users. A great blog I discovered this morning which uses a few of these applications belongs to Katie Rice, a californian cartoonist. I found Funny Cute attention grabbing because Ms Rice used text to explain the images she had drawn and uploaded on her web blog. Another web site I was shown in a lecture on Friday, March 31 for KCB301 Media Audiences also uses these applications effectively. Google Idol is a hilarious site, whereby competitors lip sync to their favourite pop, rock, or original songs on video to compete for the Google Idol title. The website is also interactive so that viewers can vote for their favourite video. So far my favourite is Anthony and Katy's version of Kelly Clarkson's song 'Since you've been gone'.

According to Leadbeater (2001), "the applications that have really worked on the internet are tools that allow people to do something for themselves, often through peer-to-peer communication, networking and transactions: e-mail, file sharing programmes like Napster, bulletin boards, mass open auctions." Leadbeater (2001) also believes that "...participation sites that provoke people and empower them with tools to do something with the material, often in collaboration with others," are more successful than 'destination sites' where users are passive in consuming culture, news and information. I believe that Leadbeater's argument is correct - interactive sites that allow a free flow of communication between users are much more effective because they support Castells' idea of building a sense of community through virtual networks.

Anyway, that's it for me today, I hope that my opinion on 'The Network Society' has been somewhat insightful for you! Emilie x

References

Leadbeater, C. 2001. Participation websites; [Surveys edition].Financial Times, p.18. (accessed April 3, 2006, from ProQuest: Multiple databases).

Welcome to Blog Number #1!

2006-03-30T19:36:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Emilie's Blog - I hope your stay here is very enjoyable.

First things first, I would like to explain that I am not particularly familiar with the world of blogs, online communities and making proper use of the Internet in general! However, this does not mean that these 'virtual worlds' do not interest me - I just haven't got my head around them yet. After attending the lecture on Wednesday night, I am feeling slightly ignorant considering 27 million new blogs have been created since 2003. This figure alone is outstanding, yet I can see why the web blogging epidemic, alongside globalisation has revolutionised the world. Blogs are not only personal, but a major means of communication to the rest of the globe.

After reviewing a few journal articles on the phenomenon of web blogging, I found out exactly how powerful a blog can be. In an article called 'Web sites personal, but millions see them', Vos and Gumbrecht (2006) point out the seriousness of writing defamatory comments or placing inappropriate pictures on one's blog. For example, in America, a Delta Airlines hostess was fired '...after bosses found her blog, "Queen of the Sky," complete with flirty pictures of her in uniform, and a California auto club fired 27 people for comments made about other employees' weight and sexual orientation. '

Additionally, I also find the idea that consumers have the power to create their own 'blogosphere' without monetary concerns very interesting. This notion was discussed in the week 3 lecture, where new terms are being created such as 'prosumer' and 'produser.' Schonfeld, Malik and Copeland (2006) argue that consumers are creating their own social media culture on the Web. 'Just as open-source programmers did before them with code, people are putting pictures, videos, blog entries, or even simple Web bookmarks online to share with their friends. ' What is important to note here is that the sole force behind this consumer-production frenzy is all about communities.

I hope to discuss a number of these ideas in more depth next week, but for now I hope you can take something from my blog to think about!

Take care, Emilie x

References:

Schonfeld, E; O. Malik and M. Copeland. "Social Media." March, 2006. Business 2.0, (7):2, p. 90. (accessed March 31, 2006 from ProQuest: multiple databases).

Vos, S and J. Gumbrecht. March 30, 2006. "Web sites personal, but millions see them." Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1. (accessed March 31, 2006 from ProQuest: multiple databases).