iGeneration 08

Before getting too into this, if anyone is a little unclear on what exactly peer-to-peer (p2p) is and how it works, I’d recommend having a little look and the wikipedia pages on “file sharing” and “peer to peer” just as a little touch up kind of thing. The pages give a little bit of background knowledge about the characteristics of this kind of network, which is helpful and constitutes a fair amount of what I’m looking to talk about. If you’re quite knowledgeable then feel free to skip this stage.

A peer to peer network is inherently suited to the exchange of information or files between its users. It encourages its members to share content with the rest of the group, and, unlike a regular client/server system, is made better through more participation from its members. And so, members of such networks use this functionality to share content with each other on a large scale, and within this, share content illegally. That is, distribute illegal copies of songs, television programmes, and/or film to each other with no regard for the copyright laws that may pertain. While reading these works below, keep in the back of your mind the above paragraph. Also, consider these questions:

1. Do p2p networks encourage peer creation of content in any major sort of way?

2. How can p2p networks be considered a more participatory medium for exchange of information than say, broadcast, or even client/server systems.

3. What are your thoughts on the argument that p2p and piracy can serve as free advertising for artists?

4. How can this means of distribution help existing communities to communicate?

5. Have you ever used a p2p network and if so, have you felt like you were participating in it, in a meaningful or positive way?

6. Is the internet based type of piracy much different from earlier types – copying cassettes for instance.

7. Are internet based networks much different from “real world” types – ‘zine publishing for instance.

Reading

Johan Pouwelse The BitTorrent P2P file-sharing system

Baptiste Pretre Attacks on Peer to Peer Networks (*For this one, the important bits are the Introduction, Chapters 2 and 3 and the Final Conclusion. There are some interesting bits and pieces distributed throughout, but a large part of it is technical things that aren’t really of interest. Even some parts of the important bits aren’t of much use to us, so don’t worry if something isn’t quite getting through.)

Scott Jensen The P2P revolution (The second section of this has a fair amount of technical stuff that doesn’t really matter, so is skippable.)

Eric A. Taub Off New York Streets, Film Piracy Is Online

Dan, writing in the New Media Research Studio Internet Piracy and the Delicious Aroma of Waffles

To reiterate, there is a lot of technical stuff in some of the sources which isn’t necessary for our purposes.

Finally, I’d like to draw a hypothetical situation for you all to consider with all the above in mind:

There is a(n illegal) p2p network of which you are a member. What characteristics does it have? For instance, is it capable of keeping your location and identity secure? Is it large and anonymous, or small and private? Are you concerned with people leeching off the network and not contributing? Do you want good download speeds? Are you concerned by companies deliberately inserting bad data to the network?

Youtube. An innocent act of frustration which led to the activation of the URL youtube.com in February 2005. Since then, the amount of users has exploded in such a phenomenal rate. YouTube’s extremely easy-to-use features have caused netizens (citizens of the internet) flocking to it when there are about 200 other destinations such as Blip.tv.

As YouTube is orientated towards user-generated content, one person’s account can add up to more than nine years’ worth of stuff. This caused YouTube’s losses to be pegged at $20 million a year. Where is YouTube going to gain its revenue from?

With YouTube, people have found means and ways to upload their creative works such as remixes of music and videos. This has led to serious copyright issues with big companies such as Viacom. However, some companies have decided to drop the copyright issues and gain revenues through ads, How successful do you think these ads are?

Lastly, would YouTube cease to exist if a ‘Next Big Thing’ dominates the internet? Or is YouTube truly the future?

Readings

Professor Henry Jenkins, “What Happened Before YouTube (Part 1)”, Cultural Science site (25-28^th June, 2008), http://cultural-science.org/creatingvaluehenry1.html (accessed 22/09/08) [14 mins]

Professor Henry Jenkins, “What Happened Before YouTube (Part 3)”, Culture Science site (25-28^th June, 2008), http://cultural-science.org/creatingvaluehenry3.html (accessed 22/09/08) [13 mins]

Henry Jenkins & John Hartley, “Is YouTube truly the future?”, The Sydney Morning Herald site, http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/is-youtube-truly-the-future/
2008/06/24/1214073239134.html (accessed 19/09/08)

Breen, J.C, “YouTube or YouLose: Can YouTube survive a copyright Infringement Lawsuit?” Texas Intellectual Property Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2007, pp. 152-181

Brian Stelter 2008, “Now Playing on YouTube: Clips With Ads on the Side” [Business/Financial Desk]. New York Times, August 16, Late Edition (east Coast). http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/ (accessed September 22, 2008).

Stephen Hutcheon, “YouTube’s Lonelygirl15 outed as a phoney “ , The Sydney Morning Herald site (September 11, 2006), http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/lonelygirl15-branded-a-phoney/
2006/09/11/1157826853893.html (accessed 18/09/08)

Questions

1) Would you consider as a form of database or more towards a social networking site?

2) How does YouTube help to facilitate fan culture? Does it bring participatory culture to a higher level?

3) With copyright laws in place, how are creators at a disadvantage when remixing movies/music? What can be done or has been done (or has anything been even done) to ensure fair use?

4) Do you think YouTube has been abused? For example, using it as a commodity for commercial purposes?

5) Does YouTube blur the boundaries of the various communities? For example, political, educational, fan culture etc. If so, how?

6) Does YouTube have a future?

First off, can I just say to everyone: well done, your podcasts are all really engaging; I’ve enjoyed listening to every single one!   Following that line, don’t forget you need to listen and share your thoughts.  To be fair, it would be fantastic if everyone got two comments on their podcasts (it wouldn’t really be fair for one person to get five comments, another person none).  That said, beyond the two critical comments you’re required to make, you’re most welcome to leave comments on the other podcasts, too, if you like!

Secondly, in our next seminar which is on Project planning, discussion and refinement you’ll be pleased to hear there are no set readings.  Instead, you need to bring along your thoughts about the major project you’d like to do for this unit.  Depending on what everyone wants to do, we’ll discuss potential ideas and then refine them into a form which can be equitable (ie things which can actually be marked alongside each other at the end of the day).  Your only major stipulation is that your major project must explore participatory culture and digital communication in a meaningful and focused way.  Also, think about what form you’d like your project to take: a straight-forward essay; a short video piece; a longer podcast; some sort of blogged investigation; and so on.  Think about something that would be of interest and engaging to you. 

Keep in mind, though, that there will be a fair amount of negotiation and refinement needed for each idea, so bring along your thinking caps, and your flexibility!

Let me reiterate, though: your podcasts are all really interesting, and you should all be proud of your efforts!

[Photo: ‘Fireworks at the Taste of Chicago’ by Zesmerelda, CC BY.]

Exegesis:

This critical exegesis of my podcast, ‘BabelSwarm’, will briefly explore how the interactive, audiovisual, virtual art project of BabelSwarm exemplifies certain aspects of participatory culture, those of collective intelligence, interactivity and community. The internet has given rise to new communities that are connected across the globe, and with it the potentials for gaming, social networking and other activities, such as art, have expanded. BabelSwarm connects with ideas of community through the virtual, amongst other things, but the breadth of possible discussion – and the complexity of the art project itself – also presented me with a challenge when creating my podcast.

In ‘Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans’, Henry Jenkins identifies three key characteristics of participatory culture. While the second and third are less specifically relevant to my project, the first – new tools and technologies that enable consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content (Jenkins, 2002) – is fundamental to a project such as BabelSwarm. The potential for interactive experiences is hugely amplified by digital technology, and particularly the connecting nature of the web. BabelSwarm fits into participatory culture both as an artwork that is created with digital technology, and because of its location within Second Life.

Second Life is a virtual world that attempts to literally give people a ‘second life’. While still restricted by technological limitations and the economic concerns of the company that controls it (Clemens, 2008: 15), Second Life sees people re-creating themselves as avatars, making friendships, buying land, decorating homes, getting married, being buried, and numerous other simulations of real-life activities. Constructing art in Second Life is one such pastime, and is now being supported in the real world. BabelSwarm, as an art installation in the virtual world, was funded by the largest grant yet seen for a Second Life project (Clemens, 2008: 2).

Second Life – and other similar virtual worlds and forums – fosters community on a global scale. Members are from all around the world, and accessing the same online world from innumerable locations. It’s a prime site for communities to form in ways never possible before. Pierre Levy predicted this result from the impact of internet technologies in stating that, ‘we are passing from the Cartesian cogito”—I think, therefore I am—“to cogitamus”—we think, therefore we are.’ (McGonigal, 2007: 1). Unlike the example of I Love Bees in Jane McGonigal’s essay on collective intelligence, BabelSwarm does not present a problem to be solved, and is without an implicit purpose in the way that online games have goals. This initially presented me with a challenge when thinking about the project from a theoretical standpoint. It seems to be that BabelSwarm does not produce or use a collective intelligence so much as it exemplifies it. It is like an enormous picture of collective intelligence.

Jenkins writes about the collective intelligence of media fans and uses Pierre Levy’s Collective Intelligence to discuss the new knowledge space that emerges when boundaries between groups and nations break down. The internet has enabled this knowledge community, which operates on the principle that no one knows everything, but everyone knows something (Jenkins, 2002). This concept is acted out by swarm intelligence: picture a group of beings without a single being governing them. By their local interactions, in pockets of individuals you might say, the group as a whole can achieve greater ends than were possible on their own. It is a picture of sharing and communication – and BabelSwarm fits right in.

>Each of the letters in BabelSwarm have been separated from their place within the word they were born in; but each letter is also programmed to search out those letters on either side of its original position. There is no all-encompassing order, but small interactive movements by each letter to reform some whole.

Interaction is also present on the part of the human user. The tower of BabelSwarm consists of words and letter that have been spoken (in real speech) and translated via software into 3-D images (in the virtual). The installation could not exist without that speech. There is also the response evoked by an avatar’s contact with letters – if hibernating, the letter will be reawaken, but if in seeking mode, it will be obliterated. Every new interaction changes the structure of the installation, building on what was previously done.

These thoughts on BabelSwarm’s significance are very perfunctory, since the project is relevant in various discussions, whether of language and history, culture and the arts, online games and the virtual/real divide, or otherwise. It is fascinating from any angle (literally and metaphorically), and hopefully the podcast I have created reflects this.

babelswarm

Clemens, Justin (c.2008) ‘BabelSwarm’. http://www.iconinc.com.au/acva/babelswarm_essay.pdf (accessed 11 September 2008).

Jenkins, Henry (2002) ‘Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans’. http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/collective%20intelligence.html (accessed 11 September 2008)

McGonigal, Jane (2007) ‘Why I Love Bees: A Case Study in Collective Intelligence Gaming’. http://avantgame.com/McGonigal_WhyILoveBees_Feb2007.pdf (accessed 11 September 2008).

The Cherry Blues Project, ‘Cosmic #1’ (Music) n.d. c.2007, http://www.opsound.org/artist/thecherrybluesproject/, CC BY SA 2.5

The Cherry Blues Project, ‘Blue Space’ (Music) n.d. c.2007, http://www.opsound.org/artist/thecherrybluesproject/, CC BY SA 2.5

Macroform, ‘Lying Down’ (Music) n.d. c.2008, http://www.opsound.org/artist/macroform/, CC BY SA 2.5

Acclivity, ‘OlgaNR1.mp3’ (sound recording) 2006, http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=14261, CC SP 1.0

Dobroide, ‘cave.large.hall.mp3’ (sound recording) 2005, http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=4203, CC SP 1.0

Dobroide, ‘voc.art.gallery.wav’ (sound recording) 2006, http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=15656, CC SP 1.0

Anton, ‘keyboard-typing.wav’ (sound recording) 2005, http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=137, CC SP 1.0

Exegesis

This podcast aimed to educate listeners about an aspect of community and participatory culture. A participatory culture is a ‘culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices’ and where the ‘members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another’. (Henry Jenkins, ‘Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century’) 6EBA World Radio immediately came to mind as a topic choice, as I have personally experienced the participatory nature of the station and few groups, activities or events in our society merge the concepts of community and participatory culture better than community radio.

As explored through various topics throughout the seminar, catering for the needs of small groups is as, if not more important, than providing support and opportunity for interaction for the larger groups in communities. Dani Cinnamon points out in the podcast that added together, those small groups make up quite a large section of a society and often community radio is one of the only ways in which smaller communities can keep in touch, be informed of community events and the current affairs in their countries. Michael Hedges states that ‘the health of the medium [community radio] depends on reaching real people, no matter how small the audience’. (Michael Hedges, ‘State Council overturns regulator on community radio’) Through offering an intense variety of programming featuring several languages and topics, community radio reaches assorted groups and individuals whom are not catered for by the larger, commercial stations that are aimed at a boarder audience. As media giants such as Amazon.com have discovered, ‘the future of entertainment is in the millions of niche markets’, most entertainment forms are moving towards a more personalised and individual experiences for their intended audiences. (Chris Anderson, ‘The Long Tail’) While this has continuously been the trend in community radio, the direction of new media forms (such as Social Networking Sites) raises the question of whether community radio will be the only provider of support, interaction and participation for smaller niche groups, and in turn whether it has a future as society moves further into the digital age.

A common conception of digital technologies and the movement towards a digital age is that it is going to enable increased audience and community participation, and move away from the ‘top-down’ experiences of media creation that have shaped our past as a consumer culture. When I raised the question to Cinnamon, she explained that the amount of digital channel available to community radio was limited and the digital channel was mainly going to allocated to commercial channels. (Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, ‘The challenges for community broadcasting’) The fact that community radio is only receiving a smaller fraction of the digital channel than currently available means that there will be less opportunity for participation, or at least less available opportunities for varied cultures and communities with smaller intended audiences to participate. It is an interesting turn in the ideologies surrounding digital media, which is often promoted as a space where there will be and is increased participation, digital media, ‘gets the audience involved, provide[s] opportunities for everyone to be a content creator, to distribute the content, and to present content in new venues’. Additionally the changes involved in the translation from analogue broadcasting to broadcasting on the digital channel bring challenges in the form of funding, management of the station and the technical structures that would be required. (Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, ‘The challenges for community broadcasting’)

I chose to record my podcast in the 6EBA studio, primarily as that was where I would be meeting my interviewee but also because this provided, what I felt, was a much higher quality of sound than a handheld recording device would. Additionally, I was then able to use audio editing software that I was already familiar with at 6EBA, and so did not have to familiarise myself with another system. Overall, this allowed for a great recording experience, as I was able to watch the interview be recorded onto the computer and so did not have any concerns about issues accessing the recording from a device. The only challenge that I came across was that the time limit of the podcast was somewhat restrictive, and consequently I had to cut out several questions and some answers that would have also contributed to concepts of participatory culture and community.

While the future of community radio is uncertain due to changes in technologies and media, it currently provides support and opportunities for participation that are not available elsewhere to small groups and communities either within or outside their community.

The Podcast

Community Radio [4:46]

Bibliography

Henry Jenkins, ‘Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.’ http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF (accessed 10 September 2008).

Michael Hedges (2008) ‘State Council overturns regulator on community radio.’ http://www.followthemedia.com/mediarules/gazelle01092008.htm (accessed 10 September 2008).

Chris Anderson (2004) ‘The Long Tail.’ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html (accessed 10 September 2008).

Community Broadcasting Association of Australia ‘The challenges for community broadcasting.’ http://www.cbaa.org.au/content.php/506.html (accessed 10 September 2008).

Ethnosphere Volume 2, ‘Track 23’ (Music), n.d.

Exegesis

      Ethnic-language media is one of the most important elements in the lives of international students, long-term travelers and both old and new migrants in their new host country. According to Zhou et al., publications is placed in a dominant position among various media forms in ethnic-language media (2006, p.52). Community newspapers actually provide a source for these ‘foreign’ people to gather informations on different aspect of life, ranging from news to suggestions for dinner. This audio project aims to examine how one of the most widely circulated community newspaper, Australia Asia Business Weekly (formerly Asia Times), contribute to the Chinese community in Perth, as well as the experience of participating in such publication.

      As a small-scale community weekly, it allows the participation of non/semi-professional people, such as students, in the production process. The interviewee in the podcast is one of them. In this case, a supposed-to-be consumer becomes a producer. Reporters can decide what they want to cover in some of the pages apart from hard news, with the approval of the editor at the end, but they do have the power to determine their own focus of stories that they are writing. Though the top down relationship of producer and audiences still exist, but the hierarchy is being relaxed.

      As mentioned in the project, both the reporter (interviewee) and readers have a feel of home and sense of belonging to the community by writing and reading the weekly. Chavis argues the ‘sense of community’ or identity is more important to a community than physical locality (cited by Gooch, 2008, p.19). The Chinese community has the advantage of living in the same area, and the sense of belonging created by the newspaper enhances the ‘social bond’ among the community. The ‘social bond’ (2002) suggested by Jenkins has being intensified by the internet. Unlike the internet, the community newspaper does not provide immediate access and speedy interactions between readers, but the ‘social bond’ still has developed within the community. The community has formed their own ‘ethnic networks to find housing, jobs and their way around’ (Zhou et al., 2006, p.67).

      In addition, the community newspaper creates linkage between the diasporians and their homeland. The Chinese newspaper emphasizes particularly on news in China and other Southeast Asian region, so it ‘keeps immigrants in close contact with the homeland, thus easing the psychological and emotional problems of being a foreigner’ (Zhou et al., 2006, p.69). Once again it creates a ‘sense of community’ (Gooch, 2008, p.19) to the Chinese people in Perth, but this time with the people in their homeland, especially friends and relatives. Although people staying in different localities cannot conduct immediate conversations through the newspaper, still it brings forth a sense of community which transcends geographical locations.

      This audio project is produced in the form of a podcast and supposedly being uploaded to a blog, which people can browse freely while they surf the World Wide Web. The circulation of newspaper is limited to physical locality as readers have to show up at the distribution point to get copies, as well as promotion of the paper is greatly limited to mouth-to-mouth transfer. Like fandom before the emergence of internet, it is a ‘week-end only world’ (2002), as Jenkins suggests. However, since the World Wide Web gives ‘a surprising degree of public visibility’ (ibid.) to its contents, the efficiency of promotion will be rocketed if it is publicised through the internet, allowing more people to acknowledge its presence and advantages brought to the community. Sadly, the newspaper remains as a ‘week-end only world’, since the newspaper is published once a week, and still being limited to its physical distribution.

      Apart from how the contents of the podcast engage in participatory culture, as mentioned above, the podcast is being uploaded to the internet so that people with the connection would have the chance of approaching it. That means the person who creates and uploads the podcast, which is me, has also engaged in participatory culture. Dery describes ‘all forms of DIY (Do-It-Yourself) media as “jamming”’ (Cited by Jenkins, 2002). The podcast jammed the Australian and Chinese culture together as it talks about Chinese community newspaper in Perth.

      In conclusion, this audio project attempts to examine how a supposed-to-be consumer tries to participate in community newspaper publication and how the community newspaper contributes to the Chinese community in Perth. The hierarchy of small-scale community newspaper is relaxed due to the employment of students as volunteer reporters. The newspaper creates a better sense of community to both producers and consumers. Moreover, the podcast itself helps to inform people on the existence of such community newspaper through a much efficient way of publicizing, the World Wide Web. Last but not least, the podcast is also a cultural product engaged in participatory culture.

The Podcast

audio-project-shemila-cheng [4:22]

Bibliography

Gooch, Betsy (2008) ‘The Communication of Fan Culture: The Impact of New Media on Science Fiction and Fantasy Fandom.’ http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/21818/1/gooch_betsy_r_200805_ro.pdf (accessed 8 September 2008)

Jenkins, Henry (2002) ‘Interactive Audiences? The “Collective Intelligence” of Media Fans’, in Dan Harries, ed., The New Media Book. London: British Film Institute, pp.157-170.

Zhou, Min, Wenhong Chen and Guoxuan Cai (2006) ‘Chinese-language media and immigrant life in the United States and Canada’, Wanning Sun, ed., Media and the Chinese Diaspora: Community, Communications and Commerce, New York: Routledge, pp.42-74.

       Exegesis

Project Work        

Bibliography

Jenkins, Henry, “Interactive Audiences? The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans”, MIT website. http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/collective%20intelligence.html (accessed 09/09/08)

McGonigal, Jane, “Why I Love Bees”, Avant Game website (February 2007). http://avantgame.com/McGonigal_WhyILoveBees_Feb2007.pdf (accessed 10/09/08)

Ng, Aik Kwang (2004) “Why is there a Paradox in Promoting Creativity in the Asian Classroom?”, Liberating the creative spirit in Asian students, Pearson/Prentice Hall, pp. 197-211

Orb Gettarr, ‘Ambient Cake (Remix Ready)’ (Music), n.d.c.2007, http://www.opsound.org/artist/orbgettarr – Ambient-Cake.mp3, CC BY SA 2.5

Orb Gettarr, ‘Another Island Dream’ (Music), n.d.c.2007, http://www.opsound.org/artist/orbgettarr – Another-Island-Dream.mp3, CC BY SA 2.5

Wong, E.L. Angela, Quek, Choon-Lang, Divaharan, Shanti, Liu, Woon-Chia, Peer, Jarina, Williams, D. Michael (2006) “Singapore Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Computer-Supported Project Work Classroom Learning Environments”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp 449-479

Exegesis for The Devil and Benjamin Johnston

In the course of the interview with Ben, I hoped to discover his opinions on various topics and themes relating to community and participatory culture. These topics and themes are well suited to Ben, in his position as both a producer and consumer of music in the current transitional climate. That is, music is now easier than ever before to produce, and indeed reproduce. The traditional support structures for emerging artists remain, record labels and publishers, with their capacity to both publish the records that contain the music, send them across the world and advertise them to people who may be open to hearing the music. Now one asks oneself “are these necessary”, given the increased ease of distribution afforded by such technology as streaming, or the social phenomena of social networking sites, such as Myspace. Furthermore, Ben offers an insight into the nature of “community feeling” when this is detached from a physical space, and instead triggered by a common interest or similar.

Ben’s opinion is that Myspace is not an ideal space to open a dialogue between fans and musicians, and that it doesn’t really open any new channels of communication and interconnectedness. Although theoretically musicians will communicate with the fans who are their Myspace “friends” this is hardly a dialogue. Fans may post on the wall, and bands may send out bulletins, or write blog notes, but neither is really engaging with the other. To continue along this manner of thinking, online interactions between fans have existed without Myspace, in the form of forums on bands’ official sites. However, one could contend that Myspace, being a Social Networking Site (SNS) engages fans in a manner different from forums, in that it works on a more web-like framework. A fan who looks at a band’s Myspace will see links to personal profiles of other fans, and, perhaps more importantly to other bands, who presumably share some common ground with the original band. While a forum may offer this as a feature, it will be because a user has gone out of their way to create it, whereas it is an integrated feature of Myspace. Whether this feature is promoting of a participatory culture or not is open to conjecture, but it definitely does simplify and extend the web nature of a fan community on Myspace.

On the relationship of a band and a record label, Ben clearly feels that bands are still reliant on the support offered by a record label. In order to reach upper echelons and traditional ideas of success it is necessary to have a label, an opinion which rings true, at least as far as I have researched, not knowing of anybody who has achieved widespread commercial success in the truest sense of the word. Incidentally, projects such as DJ DangerMouse’s The Grey Album may not have directly earned the authors any commercial capital, but have acted as free advertising for their later careers, thanks to the social and cultural capital they have earned. Ben views the relationship between artist and publisher as being two-way, with neither being taken advantage of, at least in concept. In practice he has concerns and cites the work of Steve Albini as an example. However, he believes a strong internet following grants a musician a large bargaining chip in negotiating a record deal, and that it is advantageous to have an internet following, even if it no more than a means to an ends. One can contend that if an artist doesn’t necessarily wish to achieve the traditional measures of success, and instead tailors their work to a market that wants low output from individual producers, but a high degree of specialisation. This market model is highly suited to participatory means of distribution, being as it follows the Long Tail theory of economics. The relatively small number of people who are looking for this musician’s product are able to find it thanks to various mechanisms in the internet – tagging of related music, online shops – and given it is exactly what they are looking for, will buy it.

Ben sees geographical proximity is a necessary stepping stone, more effective earlier than the internet community, and not as far reaching, particularly in a place like Perth. With this in mind, he also feels a connection with other bands based on nothing more than similar musical style, and hopes they would share this emotion. Clearly he feels a sense of community with these people, based on their common interests, which is commonly accepted to be a trait of people immersed in participatory culture, articulated by Henry Jenkins (among others) – “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication” (Jenkins, Henry ‘Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture’ accessed Sept 2008).

Ben offers an opinion that is somewhat reserved about the potential for fullscale change, and almost suggests that the present system is not going to change, at least not for musicians who hope to appeal to (and be exposed to) a large audience, the scale of which we are familiar with today. As an exploration of themes, I feel the podcast went quite well, with satisfactory answers coming to questions posed both by an interviewer and a listener. From a technical point of view, the sound seems crisp and audible above a faint room noise, with no glaringly obvious pops and crackles. The aimed for feel, of a low-budget bedroom/pirate recording is captured in the narration at the beginning and end. The levels are consistent across the multiple takes, providing a seamless transition from one piece of audio to the next. The experiment of having the music panned hard left seems to work also. All in all, the project I believe is a success.

chrisnben [4:58]

References

Anderson, Chris (2004) ‘The Long Tail’ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html accessed Sept. 2008.

Boyd, Dana M. and Nicole B. Ellison (2007) ‘Social Network Sites Definition, History and Scholarship’ http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html accessed Sept. 2008.

Albini, Steve (1993) ‘Some of your Friends are Already This Fucked’ http://www.negativland.com/albini.html accessed Sept 2008.

Jenkins, Henry (2003) ‘Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture’ http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/starwars.html accessed Sept 2008.

The music you hear on this recording is written and recorded by Ben Johnston and Chris Ardley, and is used with permission.

Tags: exegesis, music, Podcast

Fandom has existed for a long time, certainly visible since the 1950s. Publications and activities of fans in those times included fanzines (with very limited circulation) and conventions etc, it is limited by geographical locations. Early fandom appeared to be a male thing, female fans were not visible or they had ‘masculine connections’ with the fandom. During the 1990s, the visibility of female fans had rocketed. They became more obviously significant as they visibly engaged in fan fiction (fanfic) writing.

After the millennium, a lot of fandom migrated to the internet and the ‘sense of community’/identity is now more obviously about dispersed fan communities instead of geographical locations. Fanfic and fan art are now in websites which can be widely searched through search engines. The copyright problem is then evoked. Also, to serve the interest of adult fans, some fan fic includes sexually explicit languages that are inappropriate for young fans.

‘Cyber-fandom’ seems to have a lot of impact as again it amplifies the effects of fandom. In this digital age, where will fandom go and how will it affect us? And how do the origins of fandom online reflect the larger growth of online communication and ‘virtual’ communities?

Readings:

[X] Henry Jenkins – ‘”Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture“’, 2003

[X] Gooch, Betty – ‘The Communication of Fan Culture: The Impact of New Media on Science Fiction and Fantasy Fandom’

[X] Chilling Effects – ‘Harry Potter in the Restricted Section’

[X] Elana Shefrin – ‘Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture’

[X] Westcott, Grace – ‘Friction over Fan Fiction: Is this Burgeoning Art Form Legal?’

[X] Lee, Kylie – ‘Confronting Enterprise slash fan fiction’

[X] Hero Complex – ‘ “Harry Potter” fan rebellion of 2008’

[X] Bruns, Kendall – ‘Film: Pleasures of Fandom – Annual Comic-Con is a Multimedia Pop Culture Extravaganza’

Questions to think about:

 What makes a fan? Just a supporter of a text, or an active participant in fandom activities? Are fans essential to media products, especially novels and movies?

 Does cyber-fandom help with the visibility of female fans?

 Who is responsible for stopping young fans (supposedly under 18) from reading fan fiction which contains explicitly sexual languages? The parents, fan fiction site owners or fan fiction writers?

 Do you think fan fictions are legal in terms of fair use, or it is just being tolerated by copyright owners (tolerated use)?

 Does fan fic do any good to the original author? (It is a promotion of a particular piece of work, but what if, as Westcott mentioned, a non-fan which is unfamiliar with Harry Potter comes across a fan fic with a sado-masochistic Hagrid?)

 How does Henry Jenkins suggest fan culture relates to broader notions of participatory culture?