Update on Project

I have started to record people reading the different texts out loud. It's interesting to see how they all give it their own voices, as if they were putting themselves in that situation. I just record it on my phone and then upload it to my computer. I've still got to figure out how many recordings I want to have and how I will incorporate it into a movie. I think it will be really interesting if I could pair up a picture from Flckr From Last Night and have a voice over of a text being read along with it.

Making a conversation might take up more than what is allotted so I think having random ones in a sequence will be OK. They won't necessarily be grouped in any classes.

I will try to come up with an example of what I'm going to do by tomorrow and post it up on my blog so keep checking!

Essay

The Question of Authorship

The amount of content posted on the Internet has undoubtedly been amplified infinitively. As users of this great tool, we can both find and post up whatever we wish, albeit following and agreeing, even if it is without our knowledge, to the laws that govern the Internet. Later in the essay I will elaborate on these laws and the institutional framework that is found on the Internet. For now, I want to introduce the two main ideas that drive this theory of authorship that I have formed and that are up for discussion.

First, there is the idea that authorship, as we know it, and based from websites such as Twitter, Texts From Last Night, F My Life, and Before I Die I Want To, is collaborative – no longer indefinitely attached to a single author. Secondly, when all is said and done and posted on a blog or website, we must ask ourselves and really think this question through: to whom does the content belong? It is here that the element of anonymity that we find comforting about the Internet can lead to ambiguity about possession of authorship regarding Internet content. There are rules that have been intricately established about printed media, yet there is a gap between the application of those rules to print media and when they are applied to Internet media.

Let’s focus first on the idea authorship that is constructed in the aforementioned websites. There are at the very least a couple of different author functions at play. We have both the lone author and the collaborative author. The solitary author can be defined, for the use in this argument, as the person who is responsible for physically coming up with the content and posting it up online. The collaborative author is not so much a conscious choice that a person makes but it is formed by the mere set-up or goals of the website.

Let’s take for example, TextsFromLastNight.com. The website displays a collection of quirky, often inappropriate funny texts that people have sent. The website’s content is made up of these individual texts, yet it is having all those individual texts all collected in one place and even having people respond (by voting Good Night or Bad Night for each text), that gives the lone author the role of collaborator too. Without all those texts gathered on one single website, it definitely would not have the same impact or the attraction and popularity that it has.

Anyone can submit a text just by typing the text into a box on the margin and clicking “submit.” All that a person would need to provide is an area code from which the text was sent, that way the author remains anonymous in the sense that there is no proper name attached to the text. An interesting aspect of this system of submitting content is that anyone can submit anyone’s text per se. You might not necessarily be the person who sent the text but maybe you were the recipient of it, thought it was funny, and decided to post it on the website. There are quite a number of ways that the construction of authorship can be argued. In this context it would be wise to think and draw upon the author-function to realize a construction of authorship. In his essay “What is an Author?” Foucault introduces and characterizes the author-function.

A great point is brought out in his essay; the author function is not “universal or constant in all discourse.” This brings a new twist to our search for a definition of authorship in websites that rely on user generated content. For certain kind of texts, such as stories, poems, and scientific papers, a definite name is needed to provide any kind of credibility and reliability behind the text. That is certainly not what we are seeing on these collaborative websites. The fact that it’s a different kind of text, more of a leisure candid content, that is being displayed may allow for the absence of an attached author’s name. Somewhere between the line of written literary texts and online published content we have accepted this non-existence of the author function and the text itself can stand alone with a level of credibility.

Perhaps this is possible because in websites such as Twitter and Texts From Last Night we are not seeking for substantial content and we take whatever is given to be true. If we assume this, then it allows for the lone author to post up texts and for these to live freely on the web without questioning of validity. It also allows for the free interaction between different people to post up content and respond to each other’s content without seeking credit for the creation. People are constantly willing to post up their mishaps on FMyLife.com and they are not seeking the credit for the title of author. The reward lies in contributing to the site, having other people comment on your anecdote and maybe even to the extent of being relieved by having the ability to vent a frustrating or embarrassing moment to a community that is willingly reading about it.

The Rules, The Laws

Along with having to consider the new possibilities of construction of authorship on these types of websites, we also have to think about the laws that protect these websites and rules and regulations cited. We already have laws that cover the grounds of ownership and copyright that applies to the realm of written texts. We must think of the revolutionary change that the internet has brought and seriously consider whether or not we must rethink the laws that we have – are they too outdated from the kind of media exchange that is thriving on the internet? As text evolved throughout history, so have the copyright laws and terms of use, is it time for new laws to accommodate this content that is a product of “hybrid creativity.” Certainly we must acknowledge the gap that exists when we try to apply the same rules to a whole new game.

Many people do not even give a second thought to what is going to happen to the text that they have created and contributed to the websites. Yet if one looks for the framework of laws that is set up and has assigned the rights of the content – it can be found. It’s interesting that in many prefaces to these Terms of Use the users of the website are held responsible and have “agreed” to the terms even if they have not read or reviewed them. This is the greeting that we find when we look at the Terms in Texts From Last Night.com

In his book, Remix, Lessig brings in the idea of hybrid creativity. This is what we can think of when we think of what is happening with the kind of websites such as Before I Die.org. It’s a project that someone came up with – collecting pictures of people and their ideas, and yet it is the subjects themselves who allow for the ultimate realization of such project. The laws that assign power over the content should be able to recognize this collaboration and not be so black and white about who owns the final product.

The new framework still has many elements of the laws that we find for printed media – for example, there are clear terms of User Conduct and there are very specific terms when it comes to the fact that most of these sites don’t hold themselves responsible for the content and do not monitor the content that is submitted and displayed. It is clearly specified though, as in Texts From Last Night.com that any material found on the website cannot be quoted, reproduced, or displayed without the permission from TFLN. An email must be sent asking for permission, even if it is for a text that you yourself submitted to the site. Lessig would see the outrageousness in that.

Conclusion

We have seen how through websites that encourage and are made up of submissions from website uses we are treading on new ground and must define – or even remix – our definitions and theories of how authorship is constructed and then assigned. We really must think too about the value that authorship has in this new media world on the Internet. For example, do I as a contributor to Twitter not mind updating everyone on what I’m doing throughout the day – so long as no one is monetarily making profit from my Tweets?

There is also the new legal framework that these websites are constructing which can be overwhelming with the jargon and it seems that there is so many guidelines and terms that protect website creators and gives them ownership of the content that is displayed. This is in contrast to the idea that maybe we don’t put such a great value on whom authorship belongs to because if there was little or no value – then why do these creator’s of websites and their companies go through so much trouble and draw up long Terms and Conditions to make sure that there is no possible way that you could regain authorship of the content that you post it once it’s up on their website? Theoretically you could, but let’s be realistic, it’s probably such a long and expensive process that needless to say, we would not even try to fight the battle.

Pandas & Penguins

My Story Map

View The Best City In The World in a larger map

Class Story

Here's the story of the last person in the world.

Rough Draft Outline

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ae5UptxJPWLzZGNka3Nja2ZfMzBmN3BwNWZkMw&hl=en

Final Theory Presentation (Revised)

As we move further along in the project I feel like sometimes I still stumble a little but I am grasping a better idea of the relationship between authorship and authors. My project seemed a little daunting at first but after the input that I got from Sandy I was able to highlight some of the issues that I wanted to concentrate on and how I wanted to tackle them.

There are many ideas at play and the relationships in user generated content websites are very dynamic. I will consider the interactions between the individual authors and collaborators as well as the relationships between them as contributors to the same website with similar content.

The question of "ownership" is still one of my main focuses. I will be looking into the language that these websites use to describe who owns the content itself and how this transfers when the content moves from the website to other media such as books or even sitcoms.

Another point that came up while I was talking about links was the power of Tags. The tags that come with the image, or post that people put on the internet, are what allow the content to be used in different settings and expands the web of media in which it is found.

Mutimedia Authorship slide show

Theory

Authorship over the content that is displayed on the Internet, especially on collaborative websites is not at all too clear. More and more often there are websites on which you can upload a text message, a quirky thought, a work of text or art, anything you can imagine. There has been an explosion of this type of websites, which seem to be a mass collaboration between people who without having to know each other, all add to the project at hand and make it a reality. Along with all of this great, hysterically funny, beautiful content out there, there still lingers a question. Who owns that content once it has been put up online and in the time thereafter and do we need to review the rules that exist on authorship in multimedia?

It seems that if people are so willing to post things on websites like Texts From Last Night or Urban Dictionary, then they are not giving too much thought on whether or not they want the have authorship over their creation. Barthes tells us that the author is killed by the text; once the thought is on paper or on a computer screen it no longer belongs to you. Yet it is this anonymity that comes with being able to post things and not have them immediately credited to your name that gives people a sense of freedom, which is more precious than being able to claim the thought as their own.

There is a greater willingness to share whatever you have, be it a picture of your cat, an anecdote or a secret, with anyone who has access to a computer. Or maybe people just aren’t reading the super fine print that warns you: once posted on this website you relinquish all power over the content and will not try to claim any type of profit later in the future. It becomes a dilemma on some level when a profit starts being made off the content that other people posted. There is a huge gray area and somewhere in it, the orginal author - the person who had that thought, wrote that story, or took that picture, becomes completely lost. What then is their place in all of this?

It is a problem between the willingness of people to contribute to multimedia websites and what or how much authorship they have once money starts being made off their creations.

Kimberly's Research Proposal

Websites such as TextsFromLastNight.com, FMyLife.com and BeforeIDieIWantTo.org are a huge collaboration between the person who came up with the idea for the project and the actual contributors who bring this project to life. There are the posts that make up the entirety of the project but there is also the person who came up with the idea of gathering all these posts up in one place so that they create a bigger impact. Without having a central place in which all those related posts, be it funny events that happened, things you want to do before you hit the bucket or anything else - they would just be a story between you and your friends or maybe even just an idea in your head. Yet having a website that is devoted solely to displaying those floating thoughts and putting them out there for everyone else to see creates a relationship between the person who posted something and anyone who can relate to that post on some level or other. There are thousands upon thousands of people who go online and check on these websites daily to see what is new; they can just get a chuckle out of them, have a deep impression made on them, or use whatever they read to start a conversation with someone. This brings up a good question: who do those posts end up belonging to then, though? For the most part they are anonymous and only you know that you posted something up. A good example of how you can quickly lose authorship over the thought you posted is Texts From Last Night. I know plenty of people who just use the quotes on that website and have even claimed them as their own! Also, once you post something up on the website then does it become property of the website owner? Not all of these websites have easy to find Rules & Regulations so that you know exactly what you're signing on to by posting something up. It's neat to be able to have tons of people see your thoughts but once they are up on the internet, anyone can claim them as their own and it won't be so unique anymore.

The bookmarks I plan on using include:

Texts From Last Night
LL&BB "Texts From Last Night" http://textsfromlastnight.com/. 9/12/09

F My Life
"F My Life" http://www.fmylife.com/faq. 9/12/09

Before I Die I Want To
Kenney, Nicole. "Before I Die I Want To" http://beforeidieiwantto.org/index.html. 9/12/09

Article about TFLN
Boog, Jason. "Read your "Texts From Last Night" in a book" http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/deals/read_your_texts_from_last_night_in_a_book__120239.asp. 9/12/09

Plagiosphere

While reading Tenner's article "The Rise of the Plagiosphere," I began to think of all the times that papers of my own have gone through that screening for plagiarism. It's hard to fathom when anything will be original anymore if it is constantly being searched for similarities with countless of other works of texts. Everything in the world, be it ideas, lyrics, books, has always been intertwined with some other work that exists out there. One thought will inspire another. Lethem's article "The Ecstasy of Influence: a plagiarism" drives that point home. When we find things that are similar to one another are we to assume that one person cheated and decided to copy the other? If so, then who do we say is in the right, who came first? The thought that what we say, write, think up maybe isn't so original anymore - to me, it's devastating. There is a certain feeling you have from coming up with your own thoughts and putting them out there for the world to see, via whichever form of media you choose; when all of a sudden you see that those thoughts and ideas were there before you - it's a kind of disillusionment. No one will deny taking inspiration from anyone else either - but where do we draw the line? How are we to define between pure coincidence, inspiration, and plagiarism if everything is constantly being compared to everything.

Prompt I

I would not quite consider myself a "digital native." I feel like the digital scene exploded right in the middle of my life. I remember using the old computers in the school's computer lab up until middle school, when my family first got a desktop with internet. That was still in the days of modems and slow internet connections. It was mostly used for school work and later in high school, I spent an awful lot of time on AIM while doing homework. Right around that time I also began to download music. That was a huge deal for me because I was able to have a infinite collection of music, from the past and present. That seemed amazing, until YouTube came along. All of a sudden I had images to go along with all that music, even movies and just a myriad of people's recordings all at my fingertips. I can recall a time without it, even a time when I was not even allowed to join Facebook.

Nowadays I use the internet far more frequently than I ever had in my life before. There's tons of emails to check and respond to, Facebook statuses to update, many papers and class assignments to complete, and of course YouTube videos to watch. Even with all these things going on, I still try not to spend more than 20 or 30 minutes online at a time. It's so easy to get sucked in on some of my favorite sites such as www.gofugyourself.com or even reading newspapers online. At the end of the day though, I truly love the internet.