Convergence as we can see, is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process. Corporate convergence coexists with grassroots convergence (18).
I don't believe that it's just me who reads this statement with "acts of subversion" (not to be confused with "fraudulent behaviors") in mind, as I am quite certain that I am not alone as one whose digital experience has consisted, primarily, of downloading free materials (books, films, music) that most people pay money for. And it's all perfectly legal and within the public domain (Examples: http://www.archive.org/index.php, http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page, http://www.ubu.com/), ready for my perusal. Considering this alongside Jenkins' discernment between a medium (beginning with its advent remains a constant influence) and a delivery technology (the carrier of a medium, which tends to become outdated), reminds me that there has always been this coexistence between industrial/corporate entity and individual/grassroots activism. The printing press, for instance, allowed for the quick dispersement of propaganda as it also gave private citizens the means to print material that could challenge dominant political systems, and be just as easily distributable (though military opposition is, indeed, not a force that can be reckoned with). And today, with copy machines, a manager of a retail clothing outlet can rattle off as many copies of his/her advisement campaign as someone with a small budget handing out leaflets protesting the ethics behind that company's reliance upon sweatshop labor.
[I can't help thinking about a scene from Streetwise (1984), a documentary film about street kids living in Seattle. A common means of food was to take advantage of Pizza Hut's over-the-phone ordering system. Call in several pizzas (with equal distribution of toppings) from a pay-phone across the street. The restaurant calls back to confirm the order. Order is confirmed. When no one arrives to pick them up, the (still hot) pizzas get thrown into the dumpster. One hour wait time and food for a day or two.]
My focus here, actually, is on the distribution of knowledge, not as a commodity, but as a necessity (nourishment even). As restrictions are enforced, somehow people tend to find a way around them.
[End of rant.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Maybe you can help me Sean... In the CC introduction the author scorns "conglomerates" (11) and praises "convergence technology" citing Warner Brothers Industries as an example (16). Obviously, Warner Bros. is a top-down distribution, but are we praising the industry for merging so many mediums or are we against the coporate distribution of so much media? I am confused!!! Is the battle of Grassroots v. Conglomerates? Or just an example of the way grassroots now participates with conglomerates?
Jenkins is critical of conglomerates, since the word "grassroots" does involve the term "activism" by implication (a rhetorical strategy? consider the intended audience). however, he is not necessarily advocating a battle of individual vs. corporate interests, nor is he just describing grassroots participation with self-interested media superpowers. what Jenkins is, ultimately, saying (which becomes clearer by chapter 2) is that convergence culture allows consumers to control the types of products and media in ways that weren't possible before, and that these industries will have no choice but to answer these demands, rather than resume their tactics by which they try to shape and influence public response to their products. this, for the consumer, is empowering.
[i hope this helps.]
I'm very pleased to read the exchange between Leah and Sean here. This is exactly what is supposed to happen in a good seminar!
I think, for the most part, that you answer your own question with your last question, Leah. It's about the interaction of grassroots influences with conglomerates. Everyone who can communicate well stands a chance of altering conglomerates, corporate culture, etc., IF the factors that created this "convergence culture" are allowed to thrive. Read on.
Sean--I'm very interested in your notions of intellectual property in a digital culture. Obviously, laws and policies are going to change. Has your ethical sense of what you are entitled to "own" for free changed in the last five years? Dr. L
OK, respond.
my ethical sense, in terms of "entitlement," has changed to a certain degree, though not my stance. this has been informed by two sources:
1. culture jamming, which extends into a rhetorical criticism of advertising. the group negativland, because of their use of sampling has encountered many problems with regards to Fair Use (and published a book about this).
2. WIPO (world intellectual property org.) offers a free online crash course (covers copyright, trademark, related rights, patents). took this last semester: http://www.wipo.int/academy/en/courses/distance_learning/catalog/dl101genip.html
i always consider the author, am respectful to the source when obtaining free texts. many of the artists that i'm interested in would consider filesharing a form of free publicity. i rely on this principle when i can't get direct permission from the author. i do have a very broad definition of the term "public domain," one that comes with the disclamor: "for educational purposes." however, i realize that not all consumers have this notion and will exploit media texts in order to make a little cash, or fill their hard drives with various forms of "entertainment" (for sake of this only). don't know. it's a tricky issue.
i retract certain parts of this statement. it is unfair of me to make distinctions between what is art and what is eye candy. also, if a text exists within a public consciousness, it's public domain (within certain ethical limits). see, listen, read. just don't repackage and sell.
Sean--There are many books within the public consciousness that are protected by copyrights that I respect and abide by (and other "texts" as well). I appreciate your comment about the authority to distinguish between eye candy and art. Always either economic or in the eye of the beholder. --Dr. L
Post a Comment