• Blog Stats

    • 5,344 hits
  • Most Popular

  • Recent Comments

    What the Heck is edm… on Show Me What You Learned (Blog…
    Matt Eggert on Show Me What You Learned (Blog…
    jbb on Practice #12: Kumbaya
    jbb on Practice #11: Envision
    jbb on Practice #10: Be the Boar…
  • Lloyd Aldrin

  • Advertisements

Response to Nicholas Briscoe @ Da’ Blog

Obey RIAA record earnings. (n.d.) Source: Sachsreport.com

Obey RIAA record earnings. (n.d.) Source: Sachsreport.com

Here’s the deal. I am not against copyright. I don’t have an issue asking for permission to use material created by others. I do however have an issue with the way certain corporate entities have dealt with the issue thus far. “Marketers have turned our children into walking, talking billboards who wear logos on their T-shirts, sew patches on their backpacks, plaster stickers on their lockers, hang posters on their walls, buy they must not, under penalty of law post them on their home pages. Somehow, once consumers choose when and where to display those images, their active participation in the circulation of brands suddenly becomes a moral outrage and a threat to the industry’s economic well-being.” (Jenkins, 2006, p.142) I completely agree with the aforementioned statement. Corporations desperately need to catch up to the times, and accept the fact that consumers want more interaction.

Companies want their products to become infamous, and love when their products become part of culture, only on their own terms. However, societies and cultures do not work in such a fashion. Once an item becomes part of popular culture and becomes embedded into everyday life, it should be expected that consumers will want to share images, quotes, music, and so on. Particularly when that piece of media means something to the individual, will the desire to express themselves by using favorite media as that outlet. Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery? The point being that a monolithic empire such as Star Wars (1977), for instance, is an example of a beast that cannot be stopped. Countless fan films, posted images, and such. Yet the franchise remains strong, because of its continued discussion and sharing among fans to help keep the flame alive.

I agree that the artists who create material by all means should receive credit, and their due worth. I also believe that corporations and conglomerates such as the RIAA and MPAA need to devise a better solution in which to deal with the issues at hand. Suing fans, criminalizing consumers, locking down products with DRM and the like have not only not worked as well as they would like, but have put them in a bad light.

I don’t only blame the media companies; I blame the law too. There needs to be clearer guidelines written into copyright laws with expansion on fair use (for education, social/cultural freedoms, and other non-commercial usages). As Jenkins (2006, p.142) states “…media companies are giving out profoundly mixed signals because they really can’t decide what kind of relationships they want to have with this new kind of consumer.” Jenkins (2006, p.138) quotes Greg McCracken as stating “Corporations must decide whether they are, literally, in or out. Will they make themselves an island or will they enter the mix? Making themselves an island may have certain short-term financial benefits, but the long-term costs can be substantial.” The cost may be already apparent. There are a growing number of web “television” sites that offer original creative content for free, and allow the downloading, and sharing of their shows. They make their money off of advertisements, which they count on being spread. There are bands that are forming their own record labels that allow free downloading, and sharing of their content, and put more focus back onto the artists. Changes are happening.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Lucas, G. (Director/Producer), (1977). Star Wars [Motion Picture]. United States. Lucasfilm.

There needs to be clearer guidelines written into copyright laws with expansion on fair use (for education, social/cultural freedoms, and other non-commercial usages).
Every quote you have cited in this post, I have highlighted in my own copy of Jenkin’s Convergence Culture. Particularly poignant is the listing of all the ways/places marketers want their brand or message displayed. God forbid anyone take the initiative to post something somewhere they didn’t think of first! Marketing is all about endearing a product to the consumer – sending such mixed messages is not the way to do that.
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009 – 11:32 AM

I particularly agree with your contention that the RIAA and MPAA are way out of hand. DRM in particular really gets to me. Why does all of my music need to be on lockdown? Finally iTunes releases DRM free stuff but lo and behold, I wanted to burn a Michael Jackson Video to DVD and I can’t. You will see this theme recurring over and over on discussion boards all over the internet. I didn’t pay 1.99 to rent your dumb video. I bought it. So what did I do? I went ahead and downloaded the ENTIRE DVD of Michael Jackson videos from a torrent. All I wanted was one video that I thought I owned and I was forced to illegally lift 10 videos that I have never paid for. What the heck is that? Is that really to the industry’s advantage?
SATURDAY, JULY 18, 2009 – 11:41 AM


Chapter 6 (The Convergence Culture of Campaigning)

redvsblue. (n.d.) Source: http://www.miller-mccune.com. Retrieved on July 17, 2008

redvsblue. (n.d.) Source: http://www.miller-mccune.com. Retrieved on July 17, 2008

Henry Jenkins is very hopeful that the convergence culture will make politics more accessible to all of us, thereby “democratizing” it so that it is part of our everyday lives. The new trend indicates that our politicians haven’t turned their noses up to the notion either. Jenkins rightfully points out Howard Dean’s success at mobilizing his supporters via the internet (specifically meetup.com). He also points out to specific examples of this “democratizing” taking place, citing Dan Rather’s erogenous report that Bush had used family privilege to avoid serving in Vietnam (which we all know he did, as all of the rich do, but anyway. . .). Unfortunately, the Dan (as he is referred to in Bernard Goldberg’s Bias which is a great read by the way) relied on forged documents to build his case, which was immediately exposed by the conservative blogosphere. Curiously, Jenkins never uses Dan Rather’s name, instead opting to blame “CBS” for the problem. Anyone who has indeed read Bias knows that Dan Rather basically ran CBS at that time, so I find the omission curious. Anyway . . .

The “Old Media” was forced to cooperate under the new set of rules introduced by the convergence culture. The new set of rules was basically this: If you lie, we will expose you. And we can assume that in return the old guard will feel obliged to do the same. Which begs the question: What if they both lie? Jenkins warns against assuming that the internet is the great truth detector in the sea of “Old Media” lies. He also warns against believing that everyone now has the ability to access all human knowledge right at their fingertips, the main problem being that human knowledge is just that. Human.

That is to say “not Divine”, which is to say, flawed. Humans operate with filters in their brains, sometimes willingly, sometimes not. If a human wrote it, I can assure you that there is a spin behind it. Yes that applies to all of my posts. I would claim to be un-human to say that I can write anything without a spin. No one can. This is why Jenkins can easily make the observation that the new media immediately takes the opportunity to spin things as soon as it gets posted. The refreshing thing is that most in this arena unabashedly admit it, but not everybody. I don’t really consume media that isn’t honest about it’s angle whether old or new. Let me know where you stand, and then I’ll listen to what you have to say.

Unfortunately, the new media is often times no better at discerning the truth than Dan Rather was. While the “conservative” new media heartily criticized the Dan for his obvious bias against Bush, they pushed different biases on the rest of us. I’m sure you witnessed all of the ruckus about how Sadaam was going to bomb all of us if we didn’t act immediatley. If you missed that, then check the home page of the Drudge Report when you get done reading this post. You can see all of it unfold again in textbook fashion with Iran.

Jenkins is right. When online, most only associate with and move in the circles of those who think just like themselves. It’s an incestuous relationship that is bad for all of us, no matter what our political ideologies are. I post on your blog and you post on mine because we agree with each other. They all tell the same lies because they want to believe them and so does everybody else they know. If they are so-called conservatives, they rabidly defend Bush because he claims to be against abortion, and supposedly loves God. I’ve never seen so much damage done to a nation by somebody who was both a conservative and God-lover. In reality we can say for certain that Bush was not conservative. I won’t dare to judge a man’s belief in God but I will this: Even Satan believes in God and I don’t think it is doing him much good. The real tragedy in all of this is that “conservative Christians” kept Bush in office for eight years. Solus Deus Judicabit

On the other side of the coin we have the left-leaning side of the new media who constantly kept their audience in a state of angst because Bush was . . . well, Bush. It didn’t seem to matter that he appointed pro affirmative action, pro-abortion, anti-gun attorney general. It didn’t matter that Bush approved a bill that allowed minors to have abortions without consent from parents. It didn’t matter that Bush gave the UN unfettered access to our military. They just hated Bush. Here is a president that literally vetoed five bills. Five. The man let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill. I could go on about this for pages. I mean, what more does the left want? It’s just mind-boggling.

The point is, the internet offers little promise in rectifying political ignorance, as Jenkins seems to hope it will. People are willingly ignorant. There’s nothing we can do to change it. On a more optimistic note, the internet is allowing those who truly want to find the truth the opportunity to seek it out, and the convergence culture can go a long way in helping us all determine what is indeed truth and what isn’t. We can pool our knowledge collectively and arrive at it.


Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Chapter 5 (Heather and the Haters)

Satan Potter. (2007) Source: Uncyclopedia.wiki.com

Satan Potter. (2007) Source: Uncyclopedia.wiki.com

I was enjoying reading in Chapter 5 of Convergence Culture about the wonderful events surrounding Heather and her invention of a “Hogwarts” school newspaper that had a global staff of young contributers. But I found myself increasingly agitated at Jenkins for wasting 10+ pages to recount for us the resistance of roughly 1.75% of North American Christians to the Harry Potter Series. Eventually I came across the by-now-overused (and misunderstood) example of the City of Zeeland Public Schools’ battle over these apparent pinnacles of all human literature, the Harry Potter Books.  Since I live in said city of Zeeland, and also am good friends with one of the School Board members who was serving during this (and other censorship related) battle, I couldn’t help but finally reach the end of my patience with Jenkins’ utterly pointless diatribe, and here is why:

The whole “Christians-want-to-censor-Harry Potter” thing has NOTHING to do with Cultural Convergence.  If I am wrong about this, I am sincerely hoping someone will set me straight in the comments section. After doing nothing whatsoever to build the case that any of the examples of Christian intolerance, including this one, had anything to do with a fear of the converging culture of media, Jenkins hits us with this:

“The conservative Christians are simply the most visible of a broad range of groups, each citing its own ideological concerns, that are reacting to a shift in the media paradigm.  Anti-Harry Potter Christians share many concerns with other reform groups linking worries about the persuasive power of advertising to concerns about the demonic nature of immersion, taping anxieties about consumerism and multinational capitalism in their critiques of global spiritualism.” (Jenkins, 2006)

He goes on to portray the groups which he is referring to as trying to desperately maintain their position as gatekeepers of culture, knowledge, and societal norms, to which my reply is: Dr. Jenkins, since when has the Church been a gatekeeper of anything?  The invention of the printing press pretty much ended the Church’s status as gatekeeper, resulting in the little known event known as the Protestant Reformation.  It is absurd for you to portray “religious” people who wish to determine for their children which elements of the media are permissible for consumption as people who fear collaboration or media convergence. In my experience, some of collaboration/media convergence’s biggest advocates are (like Heather)
homeschooling families, the majority of which consider themselves “religious.”

Further more it is absurd to portray “conservative Christians” as Harry Potter hating fanatics.  Again, we are talking about 1.75% of North American Christians.  That would be the equivalent of me labeling “college professors” as ignorant writers simply because 2% of them wasted 10 plus pages in their books writing about something that had nothing to do with their stated reason for writing. I am pretty much the most conservative Christian I know, which basically means I believe the Bible, and if you believe the bible says anything other than what I think it does, then (GASP) I think you are wrong.  I know, I know.  It’s really intolerant of me to think that I’m right and you’re not, but that’s just the way we crazy conservatives are, and I have been made well aware by most of my teachers and the mass media that nobody besides crazy conservatives are dogmatic about anything.  Where was I?  Oh yes.  I am a conservative Christian and I happen to own three of the Harry Potter books. I also saw the first movie (which wasn’t that great). I enjoyed reading Harry Potter very much.  That being said, I don’t think that it is the end all and be all of English Lit. and really have a hard time believing that those children who didn’t read it are forever doomed to live a life of being unexcited about reading.

Allow me to elucidate the situation in Zeeland, MI.  I live in a city that JUST THIS YEAR began allowing the sale of alcohol at a particular restaurant.  The gas stations do not sell alcohol and the grocery store does not sell alcohol.  When we moved here, my wife went to the grocery store to buy COOKING WINE and after searching for it in every aisle was politely told. “Oh! We don’t sell alcohol here!”  I can count on one hand the number of stores that are open on Sundays.  Shortly after moving here, I was told by one of Zeeland’s residents that my house was in a good neighborhood because “people don’t mow their grass on Sunday’s or anything like that.” This is arguably one of the most conservative places on the face of the planet.  There is no reason why people living in this city, who pay the salaries of every school employee and for everything else in our schools, should not be able to determine what is and is not acceptable to teach.

These Dutch people up here are a very fierce  and independent minded people. I know many people that were literally born in the Netherlands.  The Dutch did not survive everything they went through as a people group by rolling over whenever somebody challenged their autonomy. The situation here with Zeeland had much less to do with Harry Potter than it did with PARENTS EXERTING THIER RIGHT TO DETERMINE HOW THIER CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT. This is a big problem with many teachers (including professors), most of whom assume that their clientele is much too ignorant to know what needs to be taught and should therefore pretty much sit down, shut up, and let the professionals handle the teaching. The superintendent made the right decision in determining that those parents who didn’t want Harry Potter shoved down their kids’ throats had the right to avoid just that.  What is so crazy about that?  “OMG!  You mean to tell me that the school actually let the parents be parents!  Why, that’s absurd!”  No what is absurd is that a teacher, who SHOULD have been mindful of parents’ rights to determine what their children read, not only fought them so hard that they were forced to take it to the school board, but also had the nerve to start a web site and bring a whole bunch of voices into the debate that had no business being involved.  That is an example of some one who clearly misunderstands her role as an educator, and I fear there are far to many teachers out there just like her.

There are many Christians in my masters degree program, and many in my church, and many at my school that are actually quite excited about the convergence culture and are nothing like those that Jenkins believes wish to return to the dark ages.  Many churches are among the first adopters of the very technology that is making this convergence possible.  I hope very much that the rest of this book is characterized by relevant subject matter, much as the first half of Chapter 5 was.  It is unfortunate that the readers are taken on such a distracting rabbit trail for the second half.


Cartoon Diablo. (2007). Satan Potter, [Online Image]. Retrieved July 18, 2009 from Uncylomedia Commons. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks:Catholic_Church%27s_Version_of_Harry_Potter

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Week 2 Vid: Good Copy Bad Copy

This documentary deals with the multi faceted issue of copyright, which, in my opinion, is in serious trouble, and brings to mind this quote from Aristotle’s Politics: “Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.” As Lawrence Lessig points out, the law is strangling creativity.

LuMaxArt Gold Guys With Creative Commons Symbol. (February 20, 2008). Source: www.lumaxart.com

LuMaxArt Gold Guys With Creative Commons Symbol. (February 20, 2008). Source: http://www.lumaxart.com

As a avid proponent of property laws, I find myself truly perplexed. I find that most people dismiss intellectual claims to property as “greed-driven”, selfish, or monopolistic. “All of humanity can benefit from [x], therefore we should all have access to it. To which I reply: Forget that! Did you think that Jobs spent all of that money for R&D on the ipod just to benefit humanity? Do you think Speilberg directs movies just to express his artistic vision? If that were the case, he would give his movies away for free. Without protection of the law, most of the great inventions and works or art we benefit from today would not exist. Few people can devote the time it takes to produce an album or movie for free, and even if they could, so what? If I don’t have a right to decide when and where and how my work is used, then I don’t really own it, do I? For those with the “humanity has a right to things that will benefit it” argument: Where did you get that idea from? Does humanity have any collective rights over your body, mind, or any of the property in your house? Not unless you decide they do. To truly be a free people, we must have the right to make the decision to be greedy, selfish, or whatever else you want to call it, and we must have laws that protect that right.

This symbol taken from a site that promotes piracy, therefore I am not crediting it.

This symbol taken from a site that promotes piracy, therefore I am not crediting it.

Yes, the “Grey Album” was sweet. Yes Girl Talk has skills. Unfortunately, those who control the Beatles catalogue don’t want their music mixed with Jay Z’s profane style of entertainment. Thank God they have the right to decide what happens with music they own. “But their killing creativity!” you say. Really? Last time I checked Danger Mouse was still creating things. As for Girl Talk, he can still be creative in the club without actually selling other peoples work for his own profit. I also know that it would not take as long as he indicated in this video to secure the rights to legally sell those albums. It would probably take a month or less. Those people want to make money, and if you can make it for them, they will expedite your requests quickly!

Meanwhile, for those of us who are sick of the RIAA, MPAA, and congress who makes new laws to benefit an exclusive few, their is Creative Commons, which grows more and more powerful every day. Eventually, things will turn around and many more artists and labels will make their work much more accessible. In the meantime, we don’t have to fight the war by doing things that are illegal. All we have to do is use the right channels to show the big boys that there is money to be had by loosening their grip a little bit. They’ll come around sooner rather than later if we do so.


Johnsen, A., Christensen R., & Moltke, H. (Directors). (2007). Good copy bad copy. [Motion picture]. Denmark: DR

Lumax Art. (2008) [LuMaxArt gold guys with creative commons symbol], [Online Image]. Retrieved July 17, 2009 from Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LuMaxArt_Gold_Guys_With_Creative_Commons_Symbol.jpg

Music Pirate. Forget them. They don’t get cited.

Chapter 4 (Folk Culture’s Comeback?)

When I teach the different genres of music to my students, I always feel inadequate to explain folk music. It is hard for middle schoolers to conceive of music that there are few recordings of. Sure we have folk rock and bluegrass among others, but those are genres unto themselves. Almost by definition, folk music leaves behind few artifacts. It was rarely written down and the majority of it was created before recordings could be made. There are folk songs that have survived like Oh, Susanna or I’ve Been Working on the Railroad but the first was a fairly commercialized version of folk music, made to be printed and distributed, and purists would argue that if it is known who composed the song, it is disqualified from being folk music anyway. The second would more properly fit into the genre of Work Songs. I prefer to think of the term “folk music” as an umbrella covering various other types of genres. At any rate, it is much easier to decide what is NOT folk music or folk culture, and one example of that would be popular (pop) culture.

Jerkins briefly explains how the commercialization of the media and entertainment industries (which are one in the same [see Neil Postman]) killed folk culture in America. I don’t believe that its death was caused intentionally, but rather that it was an inevitable occurrence due to the professionalization of EVERYTHING. This event raised the bar so high as to what could be accomplished in art, music, and literature, that only those with considerable resources were able to compete. Eventually, the perfection of artistic production transformed our culture from a participatory one to a passive one, in which commercial interests decide for us what our culture will look like as we observe it unfold before us.

As a society, we have since taken “mass culture (a category of production)” (Jenkins, 2006) and appropriated it among ourselves, thereby creating “popular culture (a category of consumption).” (Jenkins, 2006) Think about places where you see elements of folk culture surviving. If you’re like me you think of local art fairs, “antique” shops, flea markets, Renaissance festivals, and the like. In my mind, even the folk culture represented in these places is typically crafty kitsch, usually relying on ever changing fads (cows last year, angels this year, and perhaps next year we can cash in on the home-made purse movement). Half of the time, you will find that what is being passed for folk art is more likely to be decades old “pop” art or, at the least, inspired by such. Picture a 1950’s era print of Santa drinking a Coke. or a collage of the Three Stooges. It seems very un-folk culture-like to attempt to cash in on consumer trends when creating your folk art. I’ve even seen blog posts where some have harsh words for those who copy THEIR style of folk art. Are you serious? By definition folk art belongs to all of us!

Got Milk, Hmmm? (n.d.). Source: www.allfunpix.com

Got Milk, Hmmm? (n.d.). Source: http://www.allfunpix.com

Feel the Force. (n.d.). Source: lifeonwards.com

Feel the Force. (n.d.). Source: lifeonwards.com

Jenkins believes that the triumphant return of folk culture is the new convergence culture. As consumers, we now have the same tools to craft our art, music, literature, and film as the professionals do. I heard one of the Garage Band loops that I have on my computer being used in a documentary on HBO. New technology has leveled the playing field quite a bit, and is enabling us to resurrect that which the mass media put to death almost a century ago, our folk culture. Now I can make movies, record songs, and edit photography using means that only large production companies had the ability to use before. The best part about it is that just as the mass media initially used folk art to exert its influence, the common man is now borrowing from the mass media. The new artists sometimes borrow mass media in a way that the powers that be approve of, and sometimes not, as is illustrated in the pictures above. Jenkins cites fan fiction and parodies, as well as open source video games and low budget movies as examples of this new trend.

But, the technology that enables the creation of our new cultural artifacts is only half of what is making this resurgence possible. The other half is technological advancement in the area of distribution. The internet has enabled emerging convergence artists to distribute their work to a world-wide audience, giving it instant attention and immediate feedback. The immediate feedback enables the creators to hone their skills until eventually, as can be seen now on flickr, YouTube, and other such sites, the work is just as polished as works that come from huge media conglomerations. The creation of such works has been going on for longer than most of us realize, but the new methods of distribution are bringing these works into our households. The battle now lies in both sides seeking to redefine copyright law in their favor, but regardless of who wins, the new culture has emerged and is here to stay. As Jenkins indicates, our media companies will either make their peace with it and flourish, or will attempt to squash it and perish. The “Napster Generation” has come of age, and will consume on its own terms, and nobody else’s.


Feel the force. [Online Image]. (n.d.) retrieved July 14, 2009, from lifeonwards.com. http://lifeonwards.com/blog/?p=1807

Got Milk, Hmmm? [Online Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved July 14, 2009, from allfunpix.com. http://www.allfunpix.com/picspages/yoda_milk.html

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.