Copy Grounds

In taking up the topic of Internet pornography this semester we were fortunate to be joined by not only from Prof. Robert Jensen but Jennie Ketcham as well. I was very pleased recently when Jennie graciously agreed to answer some of our questions. Jennie’s past experience as a performer in the adult entertainment industry allows her to bring valuable perspective to this discussion. And considering the feelings of despair that this topic is capable of inducing, Jennie also brings a much-needed levity to our conversation. Below are Jennie’s comments on both our discussion with Prof. Jensen and a number of student questions.

Jennifer Ketcham: What a great lecture… I admit, I am green with envy. I have one professor that speaks as eloquently, and inserts the occasional lame joke (not that Dr. Jensen’s jokes were lame ahahh) to lighten an otherwise grim topic. You students are very lucky to have had him for the day, and thank you again for including me on the topic. continue reading…

What would a course on new media be without a discussion of porn? Pornography is so ubiquitous on the Internet it no longer makes sense to consider them separately. While it’s difficult to say just how much bandwidth consumption results from the use of online pornography it’s safe to assume the amount is significant. What’s more, the content of Internet pornography is seemingly more extreme and oftentimes degrading than the mainstream porn of just a few short years ago. In order to help us make sense of the relation between technological development and online pornography Professor Robert Jensen visited our class last week to discuss the feminist critique of pornography. Our discussion is presented here for your consideration.

Robert Jensen: I’m Bob Jensen. I teach in the journalism school and for the last twenty two years I’ve been thinking about pornography. Now that does not necessarily make intuitive sense. Journalists are not pornographers. What the hell is going on here? So how did I get here? Twenty continue reading…

I recently had the opportunity to ask Tiziana Terranova a handful of questions about her concept of free labor. My own work has been greatly influenced by Prof. Terranova’s particular analytical approach to the study of social relations in the digital economy. Therefore, I am especially pleased to share her responses to our questions here.

Copygrounds: How does your concept of “free labor” differ from other historical forms of unwaged work? For example, the domestic work of housewives or the work of raising children may both be seen as integral to the continued reproduction of the capitalist system and are often unwaged. Moreover, these types of labor may also be both enjoyable and exploitable. What sets your concept of “free labor” apart?

Tiziana Terranova: When looking at the concept of ‘free labor’, you need to remember that it was formulated about 12 years ago, that is at a very early stage of what people called ‘the digital economy’. There was much debate at the time about the economic transformations triggered by the specific properties of information. The article, that constituted my research output after a grant continue reading…

Copygrounds: What do you think would happen if the right to active participation was extended to areas of cultural or informational production outside of copyright law? In other words, should people be allowed to actively participate to some extent in areas of production normally covered by trademark or patent law? Is it desirable to allow people to remix brands, reverse engineer and re-distribute software, etc?

Henry Jenkins: Not only is it reasonable, but it may also be desirable from the point of view of the rights holders. Eric Von Hipple in the Sloan School of Business at MIT has explored what he calls “lead users.” Lead users are early adopters of new products but also because they are on the cutting edge, they are also often adapters of those products. They adjust them to better serve their own needs which are sometimes generalizable to other users and sometimes highly specialized. Von Hipple advises companies to allow certain space of consumer experimentation and adjustments so that companies can monitor what they do with their products, identifying unexpected uses and unidentified bugs in their production. Some companies have institutionalized such practices, working with their most dedicated consumers to generate ideas that ultimately get translated into new products. Lego is a company very famous for such practices. Brands are discovering that allowing more free play with their once sacred icons is in fact generating greater public interest and also inspiring new continue reading…

Our class was delighted to be joined by Fritz Attaway and Craig Hoffman from the Motion Picture Association of America last week. Fritz is an Executive Vice President and Special Policy Advisor for the MPAA and has been a leading figure in developing the motion picture industry’s approach to  intellectual property. Craig is in charge of corporate communications for the MPAA. They joined us by telephone for a discussion which centered primarily on the challenges posed by technological development for copyright. Below is a transcript of the proceedings in their entirety. Many thanks to both Fritz and Craig for this informative discussion.

Interview with Fritz Attaway and Craig Hoffman

Interviewer:      Brett Caraway

Interviewees:    Fritz Attaway & Craig Hoffman

Date:                 September 30, 2010

Brett: I’ve got the whole class assembled here and we are on speakerphone. I guess first off I would like to start by Craig having you tell us a little bit more about what your position is at the MPAA.

Craig: Sure. I’m in charge of corporate communications for the MPAA which is public relations and continue reading…

Two weeks ago, Henry Jenkins posted in his blog an interview with Aram Sinnreich about the new book  Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture that addressed several topics related to the discussion we are having in Copygrounds and our class (e.g. digital technology, cultural production and distribution, copying and sharing, remixing and mashing up).

The interview reveals Sinnreich’s effort on updating the terminology  that describes the culture we are producing and distributing with digital media nowadays. As he explains,

“The premise of “configurable culture” is that we are currently in the midst of just such a seismic shift. The collection of new technologies that we generally refer to as “digital” or “new media” have given us an unprecedented power to capture, archive, share, and above all, edit and re-edit many of the elements of human expression.”

It is also refreshing to read that, thanks to the extensive interviews with  DJs, attorneys, and music industry executives and to Sinnreich’s background as a musician and industry consultant,  he brings different perspectives  into the debate about p2p file sharing. He says,

“How can we possibly understand peer-to-peer file sharing if we only focus on its purported economic costs to record sellers? How can we understand the implications of hip-hop and mashups–and the essential differences between these forms–if we only focus on the question of whether sampling is “theft” or not? What are the social implications of music market dominance by the likes of Apple, Clear Channel, Sony and Viacom, beyond questions of industrial concentration and economic monopolization?”

Although I have not read the book yet, I am looking forward to do it soon.  Meanwhile, an excerpt of Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture can be accessed here.