Alive, and in Cambridge

[rivkat]

Fandom, I miss you!  T minus two weeks until the new baby, and I hope to be a little more fannishly active during that time.  In the meantime, here are my notes from one of today's presentations, perhaps of interest to the theoretically inclined.

Brady Curlew, Empowered Poachers or Puppets of IP: His research focuses on how users of new media objects use them in unexpected ways, and how the original producers respond – oftentimes by creating corporate policies that acknowledge user manipulation, often for their own benefit.  His title refers to two different conceptions of what may be the same activities – users/audiences (1) exercising power that can be creative and even political or (2) buying into a system that sells their own creativity back to them in an exploitative relationship.  The empowered poacher he’s looking at isn’t just altering interpretation, but actual bits of cultural artifacts by, for example, altering Super Mario Bros. cartoons.  Politically oriented game “mods” change the layout of first person shooters so you can hunt down Mickey Mouse at Disneyland or go through an environment with anti-Iraq war ads.  This model prioritizes the consumer end of things, especially consumption by media fans and dissenters.

But what about the IP puppet?  She is the same person, someone who engages with popular culture, even for political ends, for the financial benefit of big corporations with little or no remuneration or other benefit for herself.  The theoretical background for this conception comes out of the response to audience studies: a focus on the increasing commodification of leisure time and the uncompensated audience labor in things like watching ad-based TV.  Marxist theories identify how protest has moved from work contexts to leisure contexts.  Interpretive freedom exists, but in a context of capitalist labor exploitation.  The IP puppet is coopted; she provides free R&D to corporations who sell her products to others.  The corporations also take actions to keep her work “within bounds,” for example by using IP rights to limit and police modifications.

There are elements of truth in both concepts.  Is there a middle way?  Curlew looks at the responses of modders in digital gaming, who see both positives and negatives in user-generated content (UGC).  UGC fills holes left by the market, creates new value, creates symbolic capital for modders, and improves the games.  Negatives: may threaten the jobs of paid creators; adds low-quality and lowbrow content; operates outside of regimes that control hate speech, porn, and inappropriate content for minors; creative labor goes unpaid; modders often have no legal rights to their creations (the big exception being Second Life).  Producers may nurture fan engagement in a way that keeps fans under producers’ careful scrutiny, as with the Sims.  Producers may encourage modding competitions, but selectively embrace certain properties and deemphasize other changes.  (I’m reminded of the debate over user-generated ads – sure, you get a couple of people who create anti-global-warming ads for car companies, but then you also generate a lot of user investment in the unironic celebration of the brand – especially when the creators know that they might end up with their commercials shown during the Superbowl.)  What are you willing to trade off to get your fun (aboveboard)?

Curlew pointed out during the comments period that exploitation of young and hungry creatives is not exactly unique – his university is paying him $4000 to teach a course (and I’m pretty sure that’s Canadian dollars).  That doesn’t mean that it’s unproblematic for advertisers to promise film school students their “big break” from making a splashy ad for free, but it’s not as if academia has clean hands here.

Random note: law professors talk about our papers; we don’t read them to the audience.  Given citation norms in law writing, it would be very difficult to read them, and not much fun for the audience either.  For some reason, perhaps simply the prevalence of Englishy types, this conference is making me think about the differing standards as aesthetic practices.  I find the “read the paper” style uncomfortable and distancing; I can read faster than I can listen, and I’d rather be handed the paper myself.  But it does push towards coherence and against verbal tics, and I expect my style is less satisfactory in those respects, especially to those who are used to reading.

Comments

[anitac588.livejournal.com]

Rivka, just a short comment to the first line of this post: I cannot believe that you're having your second baby and still have a regular job.
Good luck! :-)

[anitac588.livejournal.com]

PS I just read this comment and it didn't come out at all as it should, heh. I meant your sporadic posts on the subject make it sound everything runs so effortlessly and smoothly, so that still have should read still manage to have - not that you should quit the job.
*rolls eyes* Sorry.

[astolat]

*hugs you and misses you from my own cave of busyness over here*

[chase820.livejournal.com]

Good to see you back! Congratulations on your upcoming happy event. :)

[giandujakiss.livejournal.com]

I'm here. You're not. You suck.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

I've always hated the reading-the-paper style. I can absorb information more quickly and effectively on the page. It does deter rambling, though.

And good luck!