ASSMT 1: 2.5 Notes on games, ARGs and digital commons

The topic of Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) was an interesting one this week that I think fits well with my remediation project and essay. Although I have chosen to remediate and write an essay about the sub plot of a television series - the way in which the characters story intertwines with real life scenarios is similar to the way in which ARGs are operate.

Örnebring states: "Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) are a form of internet-based mystery game in which participants are immersed in a fictional world and engage in collective problem-solving" (Örnebring 2007 p. 445).

And they work by:

  "Events and things mentioned in the episodes of the TV series itself will also provide clues. Bit by bit, these clues form a separate narrative set in the fictional world" (Örnebring 2007 p. 446).

In the TV show Gavin and Stacey - Nessa's back story is never fully told and she remains somewhat of a mystery. A series of clues are dropped by Nessa in her stories that reflect upon past conquests involving famous people from the real world. If viewers choose to investigate these clues they will find that these stories not only reference real life people but also real life scenarios that have been reported in the press. Nessa turns out to be someone that has escaped the limelight while being involved in a great deal of scandal.

Therefore the TV show follows a similar line to ARGs in that:

• A mystery is created
• Clues are given
• Clues can be investigated by audiences
• Clues link to real world people and scenarios through press reports

My remediation project sets out to join these clues together through a blog that presents Nessa as if she is a real life person and further the idea that the stories are true. Unlike a game there is no puzzle solving winning at the end, it is merely a site for investigating clues and filling in the back story - a kind of virtual reality blog based on a virtual reality storyline in a TV show.

In this regard my blog could be seen as an example cultural labor  described by Fiske and quoted by  Örnebring as " ‘filling in the syntagmatic gaps in the original narrative’ (Örnebring 2007 p. 451 quoting Fiske, 1992). In other words the blog pieces together a back story that enriches the characters in TV show. Örnebring believes that this type of culture labor supports marketing for television shows (as does other fan created content) - as it stays within the storyline and concept of the show rather than changing it, and disseminates to a wider audience

This same idea was covered in our second reading about Digital Commons - especially in the sections about mods which are fan produced modifications for games. The point was made here too that modders stick to the boundaries of the originating text source as per the following quote:

"most mods are thematically conservative, undertaken by technically accomplished fans who love a particular game and want more of it – more weapons and monstrous opponents for shooters, different campaigns and battles for war games – in variants that don’t stray far from the spirit of the original" (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007).

Both readings link fan culture, virtual reality and media institutions all of which relate to my remediation project. As the blog is aimed at fans and new watchers of the show Gavin and Stacey -  this topic would be good to cover in my essay.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Örnebring, H. 2007. Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10: 445 - 462. Sage Publications. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/10/4/445 (accessed 20/10/11).

Unpack the tenuous and complex tensions between game pirates and games companies.

According to Coleman and Dyer-Witheford Game Pirates can be categorized as follows:

Black Market Centers:

·      Businesses that produce high volumes of copied games for sale and profit. They run factories in “Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p.938) that are professional and sophisticated and mimic the business model of legitimate games producers but within a criminal syndicate.

Warez Groups:

·      Peer to peer file sharing. Warez groups believe that once they have purchased a game that they own it and have a “right to redistribute it” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 938) to other games lovers. They see laws that prevent redistribution as part of a “greedy corporate order” and therefore “gift” games to others within the group without seeking financial reward. The Warez economy works on sharing games and payment comes in the form of “thrill of technological accomplishment” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 938) and a good reputation within the group.

Other:

·      People making the odd copy of a game, sharing them in small groups, businesses copying the odd game to restock their shelves, and games lovers uploading out of production “retro” games online – keeping them in existence which in some ways can be seen to support the gaming industry through the dissemination of gaming culture (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 940).

In the eyes of copyright law all three types of piracy are seen as equal in severity and no distinction is made between them despite their vast differences. As Coleman and Dyer-Witheford point out, the games industry was founded on the back of hackers who shared, improved and redistributed games for the fun of it. This was not an illegal activity until big business commodified games, turning their originating producers into criminals (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 937).

Further tensions arise within the gaming community when the games industry seeks to recoup their financial losses due to piracy by increasing the sales price of their games, effectively punishing their law-abiding customers while black market groups continue to copy. Furthermore the addition of “anti-coping” technology to games software aimed at reducing piracy has, in the past, reduced the quality of the product – resulting in law suits for the gaming industry (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 940) and again punishing the customer base rather than the black market criminal. 

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Images and Referencing the Remediation project

LINK TO NESSA'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK

In an effort to not infringe copyright, I have created some of my own images for Nessa's little black book

I have uploaded them here so I can link to them in the HTML code in Nessa's blog

THE BLOG DESIGN

 The blog design and the sticky tape frame for my images was created by  Templates Block and is Licenced under creative commons as follows:

"Blogger Template by:

Templates Block - Free Custom Blogger templates for Blogger/blogspot blogs.

http://www.templatesblock.com/

**********************************************************************

License:  This free Blogger template is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits both personal and commercial use.

However, to satisfy the 'attribution' clause of the license, you are required to keep the footer links intact which provides due credit to its authors. For more specific details about the license, you may visit the URL below:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" (Evo)

This means that can use and alter the template without worrying about copyright so long as I reference the original creator. The acknowledgment is built into the blog design itself (on the bottom right corner) so this part is all done for me.

THE DRAGON IMAGE on NESSA'S A-Z PAGE

I created the image of the Welsh Dragon myself using Photoshop and my own photograph of the welsh flag. The hearts were created in illustrator and added to Photoshop image. The reason I have chosen the image is because it is the flag of Wales and is tattooed on Nessa's arm.

THE PHOTO OF NESSA on NESSA'S HOME PAGE

The photo of Nessa came from The British Comedy Guide website  and its attributed to "Baby Cow Productions". This image will need to be referenced to ensure it doesn't breach copyright law. I am also using a small part of it for the purposes of education so it should be covered under the US terms fair use , the Australian Fair Dealing exceptions and UK Fair Dealing exceptions.

REFERENCING TEXT

I will also need to cite and reference every entry in the blog. Instructions on how to reference episodes of a TV show APA style can be found on the Coats Library website

 

Baby Cow Productions. gavin_stacey_nessa.jpg. http://www.comedy.co.uk/images/library/people/180x200/g/gavin_stacey_nessa.jpg (accessed 10/10/11). 

 Evo, V. Personal Blog. http://btemplates.com/2010/blogger-template-personal-blog/ (accessed 10/10/11).

 

The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism by Jonathan Lethem

The Ecstasy of Influence might be a good academic text to use in my remediation essay. In in the Lethem discusses artists, authors, singers, songwriters, cartoonists etc who have borrowed from other sources to create their works. Examples given are TV shows like The Simpsons, the surrealist art movement, Shakespeare and Bob Dylan to name a few. Lethem's  point is that today these works would be considered and act of plagiarism and piracy yet are a massive part of our cultural identity. Where would we be without them?

Lethem also speaks of the loss of "public commons" and the "gift economy" meaning - that inspirational work is a gift to those who take inspiration from it - the value is in the thought it generates not in the money it could produce. 

The 10 page essay is then followed by a bout of extreme referencing - 3 pages where the Lethem has tried to reference every single thought he had while writing the article mocking yet abiding by the extreme rules that govern how we express our thoughts.

 Favorite Quotes

•  "If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; .... If those don't strike you as essential losses, then consider the remarkable series of "plagiarisms" that links Ovid's "Pyramus and Thisbe" with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story, .... If these are examples of plagiarism, then we want
  more plagiarism" (Lethem 2007)

• "The distinctive feature of modern American copyright law is its almost limitless bloating-its expansion in both scope and duration. With no registration requirement, every creative act in a tangible medium is now subject to copyright protection: your email to your child or your child's finger painting, both are automatically protected." (Lethem 2007)

• "And artists, or their heirs, who fall into the trap of attacking the collagists and satirists and digital samplers of their work are attacking the next generation of creators for the crime of being influenced, for the crime of responding with the same mixture of intoxication, resentment, lust, and glee that characterizes all artistic successors. By doing so they make the world smaller, betraying what seems to me the primary motivation for participating in the world of culture in the first place: to make the world larger." (Lethem 2007)
  
  
  
  Lethem, J. 2007. The Ecstasy of Influence, A plagiarism by Jonathan Lethem. Harper's Magazine February 2007. http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387 (accessed 12/10/11).

ASSMT 1: 2.2 Notes on Laws that strangle creativity (Lessig 2007) and Creative Commons (CC)

Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity | Video on TED.com

“We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them pirates . . . is that good?” (Lessig 2007)

 

In this presentation Lessig describes the 20th century as a time where creativity was displaced. Historically our society was based on a "Read Write" culture but in the 20th Century we evolved into a  "Read Only" culture - a culture where we consumed media content but do not participate in the creation of it. (Lessig 2007)

In the 21st century we see this Read Only culture challenged by new media which allows for a return of the Read Write culture or in the terms of Jenkins a "Participatory culture" where we not only consume media but we also create it. We not only "Read" but we also "Write" and we do so by creating user generated content and distributing it through social networking sites such as YouTube. (Lessig 2007)

As Lessig points out, Copyright law blanket covers all unauthorized use of content as criminal and as such dampens the creativity of a generation who creates art from snippets of other peoples content (such as creating vids, mashups or remix). While he acknowledges that copyright law has its place it should be changed to allow for this form of expression and suggests Creative Commons as a pathway towards decriminalization. (Lessig 2007)

In Australia the creator of a work is the copyright owner, (unless there is a signed contractual agreement that states otherwise) - copyright is not something that is applied for, but is something that exists at the time of creation (Ownership of copyright  2006). As such works cannot be copied, reproduced or reused without the creators permission.

There is a Fair Dealings clause that allows people to use snippets of copyrighted material for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing  2008) but this is a legal defense that can be used if sued, it is not a legal right to prevent one from being sued (dangerousnerd 2007).

As Collins states in his article – fair use can be manipulated by large companies who use their media presence and financial advantage to send a message to the general public about sampling their products (Collins 2008). They do so by suing samplers who then need to fork out money to defend themselves under the terms of “fair use”. The large sums media companies sue for put fear into samplers – they can either take down content before it goes to court, or face the possibility of loosing great sums of money in the court system.

Creative Commons on the other hand takes the guess work out of using other peoples content as allows the creator of material to stipulate whether or not it is OK for people to copy, sample, re-use or reproduce a work. It succeeds where fair use fails as it clearly communicates the terms of which the works can be used. There are 6 standard licences, which vary in restrictions. The most relaxed licences allow people reuse, alter and distribute works for both private and commercial purposes while the most restrictive allows only for the sharing of a work. All licences stipulate that the originating creator must be acknowledged (About the Licenses). A comprehensive list can be found on the creative commons website.

Overall I believe creative commons to be a good thing but it is a voluntary system that applies only to those who are willing to share. It does not address the issues of media companies hording content or their manipulation of the legal system to prevent creative re-use of it. Therefore participation by media institutions seem unlikely due the the economic benefit they receive from their current business model.

Although the TV show I am going to remediate (Gavin and Stacey) does not fall under creative commons licensing I should be able to avoid infringing copyright due to fair use. Dangerounerd states in their YouTube video “You cant copyright an idea…you can only copyright the form an idea takes”(dangerousnerd 2007) therefore I am free to remediate the storyline. I can also use small snippets of dialog from the show and change their form from spoken word to written text so long as I reference the source (as you would when writing an essay). Overall I am creating the remediation for educational purposes, which falls within the guidelines of the Fair dealing exceptions of Australian copyright law. If Baby Cow productions (owners of Gavin and Stacey) do try to sue me I should have grounds to win  - so long as I can afford the legal fees in the first place!

About the Licenses. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 9/10/11).

Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11

Lessig, L. 2007. Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity. TED.

Ownership of copyright. 2006. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G58. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 9/10/11).

2.2 Notes: A fair(y) use tale

“A fair(y) use tale”:  where the rules of copyright are discussed through a mash up of Disney movies and an explanation of copyright issues spoken through their characters. This clever little film made some very clear points such as:

• Copyrighted materials can only be used by copyright owners
• It is illegal to use copyrighted material without permission from the owner
• You can pay for copyright permission (but it can be expensive)
• Books, plays, music, dance, movies, and pictures can be copyrighted
• You cannot copyright and idea, but the FORM the idea takes can be copyrighted (very important in terms of my remediation project)
• Copyright did only lasts for a fixed time of 14 years which was considered enough time for the owner to make money out of it.
• Now copyright lasts for the authors lifetime plus 70 years, preventing works from entering the public domain for free use by people in the same lifetime it was produced
• Fair use allows people to use small parts of copyrighted matierial for parody, critical comment, or education but validity depends on the nature of the work, the amount used, and commercial impact
• Fair use is not a right and is only a legal defense position (in the USA). The fact that it isn't a right allows large media companies to use intimidation to control their commodity.

(dangerousnerd 2007)

So it seems I caught the wrong end of the stick in my last post 2.2 Notes: Recovering fair use (Collins 2008). In it I ask why it is it is OK to quote parts the words or another author in your own writing, but it is illegal  to do this with other forms of media? (e.g. using a line of music from one song to create a new song). The film “A fair(y) use tale” proves that YOU CAN use snippets of other forms of media. ITS NOT ILLEGAL …. Well at least this particular work is not illegal – not today anyway – its murky water to say the least.

So how does it work?

 As dangerousnerd states -  copyright lasts well over 100 years - so the snippets of Disney films used to create A Fair(y) use tale would be well within the confines of copyright law.  This kind of film slips through the net by only using small parts of many different many films, the use of which does impact financially on the originating owner, and the film is for educational purposes - not only educating people through its commentary but also working as an example of what can legally be created out of someone else's content.

This film could also be said to fall under the title of "critical comment" - critiquing perhaps the impact  of  the Walt Disney Corporation on copyright legislation. Ellam's documentary RIP: A remix manifesto states that in 1998 the USA Government granted the Walt Disney Corporation copyright terms of "the life of the author plus 70 years" or plus 95 years if it was a corporation  (Ellam 2009). This precedent means that any media created now, will not enter the public domain and be free for use within our lifetimes. We cannot legally draw upon, extend, remix and remake using the influences of the modern day (unless of course we pay to do it).

A critical  point to make I think.

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

RIP: A Remix Manifesto (part 5). 2009. YouTube,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfSiQjFmcZw (accessed 6/10/11).

2.2 Notes: Recovering fair use (Collins 2008)

This article looks at how the  blending of “media consumption with media production to create new works” (Collins 2008) and  subsequent internet mediated distribution is challenging current copyright laws in the US. The article focuses on “Fair Use”  - a doctrine that is part of the United States Copyright Act 1976 which allows for a certain amount of flexibility when using copyrighted material if it is deemed “fair”. This doctrine, Collins states, is being “systematically eroded” by harshly enforced copyright legislation -  and is something that Collins would like to see re-instated to ensure our cultural and creative expression is not stifled.

Collins begins by pointing out that copyright and distribution of text have always walked hand in hand - with the originating law being granted in order to allow for the exchange of money in return for access and use of texts. It was created in the interest of society, in the interest of learning and education, and to promote creativity and new thought by exposing people to new ideas through books (Collins 2008). 

The system of using another's work without permission but ensuring the originating source is always quoted or cited is a system still used today in writing, and I tend to wonder why it has not evolved to include other forms of media. Should I choose to write a book and publish a string words written by another author I can do so as long as its referenced. Should I choose to make song, and use a line of melody from another song it is illegal. As an example - take a look at the band Men at Work - sued for using a line of melody from "kookaburra sits in the old gum tree". I wonder if they sang the reference would they have avoided a court case? I also wonder is free speech limited now only to the written word? 

.... Hang on I haven't reference the title of that bird song! I'm probably looking down the barrel of a law suit right now. Here I am ... playing with fire - much like that other, less fortunate Kookaburra....

The article goes on to give two examples of when "fair use" has been successfully used to defend  people in court who have used songs without the copyright owners permission. One  - where a mother posted a video on YouTube of her baby dancing to a song by Prince, and the other where 15 seconds of a John Lennon song was used in a documentary. While both cases were acquitted I tend to wonder if fair use is the way forward - as it is a court appointed process that relies on the everyday person fighting against large media institutions who have greater financial resources, and therefore greater power in the courtroom. Court cases cost money, and the average person may find it easier to take down their content rather than trying to fight for their right to display it. The playing field here is not level, despite the laws created to make it so.

Australian copyright law does not contain a fair use clause but does have “fair dealing” exceptions which allow copyrighted material to be used for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing  2008). Yet even if a work is used for educational purposes it is still up to the courts to decide if the use was fair and it is this that worries me. What constitutes as a fair learning experience? Will work created in an effort to self educate be seen as any more or less fair than works created when attending an established education institution? Is one form of learning more legal than the other?

The idea of fair use and copyright may be a good thing to base my remediation project on as I am not sure that copyright law works in the best interest of the everyday person. If anything it seems copyright has the ability to make criminals out of just about everybody. Kookaburras included.

Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).

Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11).