They did a good job reaching out to the right people. The attendees consisted of all types of bloggers: corporate bloggers, personal, media, and even reporters covering the event for the media. It really drew a useful crowd of people.

The conference constantly found creative ways to example New Media and Web 2.0 technology. During lunch they ran a twitter feeds on the big screens so we could extend our conversation past the physical limitations of our tables.

The event ran Saturday and Sunday and consisted of coffee breaks and short 60 minute sessions. They had 3 different sessions you could attend for each time slot. More often than not, I found some very useful sessions.

My favorite was probably the “From Essays to Easy Money: Blog Monetization”. This session was developed by Shawn ‘Smitty’ Smith, one part of the founding team for IndyMojo.com. He really explored the creative marketing opportunities available in blogging.

I could go on forever about this conference but I don’t want you to fall asleep. If you’re interested in the other sessions or want a copy of my notes from the conference I’d be happy to share them. Just leave a comment or email me at speak.to.jman@gmail.com.

Tune in soon for my next post, the main topic is, “How to exploit creative marketing opportunities in Blogging”.

* This event was help at IUPUI’s new student center. A word about the building… It is an amazing building: every corner from the spectacular window view, to the “mood lighting” in the bathrooms was spectacular, it’s a great building.

**I do attend IUPUI so there may be a little bias in the opinion.

- tha J man -

[ All content within this post is opinion and/or informational ]

“Free Culture is about the troubles the Internet causes even after the modem is turned off.” The current lawsuit YouTube is in against production companies demonstrates this problem. The invention of the internet and the development of YouTube and video smashing is causing grief in the copyright/legal community long after you’ve finished looking at your daily videos.

YouTube’s source of intellectual property is not all that different from Disney’s. “There has never been a time in our history when more of our culture was owned as it is now.” (12) This quote from Free Culture is important because it is true. In Disney’s day this was not really an issue. From a legal perspective I would agree with Lessig’s opinion that creators like Disney are appropriate in their inventions.

In Disney’s day copyrights only last about 30 years which meant there was a large body of free information and ideas that could be further developed without permission. In that body of information was the Jazz Singer, Steamboat Bill, Jr. and the Brothers’ Grimm Fairy Tales. Disney had every right in the world to combine these great ideas into a then new form of media, which today is one of the most valuable in the world. Silent films would never have achieved that success.

Now as to the issue of whether Disney stole the intellectual property of these individuals’ creations, is the quote: “The source of confusion in protecting intellectual property is, ‘the distinction between republishing someone’s work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on the other.” (19) Clearly Disney wasn’t attempting to steal work because in each case he simply built upon older works and transformed them into an entirely new and unique product. Clearly, once again, Disney was not a thief, just a great story teller who understood what made a story more entertaining.

A free culture is something this country has attempted to maintain through the years of development and complication. “A successful free culture protects the rights of add-on inventors and developers, to make sure they are free as possible in their accumulation of intellectual property.” In Walt Disney’s case the free culture protected his rights in every way. Although today I imagine it would be near impossible to make an adaptation of a Disney movie and release it to the public, without being sued. This brings us to…

Rochelle Dryefuss theory of creative property rights, “if there is value, then someone must have a right to that value.” Steamboat Bill, Jr. could be considered incredibly valuable today because it was one of the original inspirations for Walt Disney’s success. So if that is true and it has value, then why is Keaton not entitled to rights within the Disney company. The constant question is whether the value added on by Disney should be credited to Keaton’s intellectual property. I would agree with Lessig that it is Disney’s intellectual property.

“Under both Japanese and American law, that “taking without permission” of the original copyright owner is illegal.” However, in Disney’s case as well as the Japanese art of Doujinshi it seems it is okay to copy if; the end result is not the same and/or the economic power of the ‘taking’ in question is great. Japan won’t get rid of Doujinshi, because it might actually negatively affect the Magna industry that copyright laws were created protect. It is the same with Disney.

Scientists often shares research to further advance their science, acting companies do different adaptations of plays, and even our founding fathers based their democracy off of former democratic systems. As Lessig says, “some things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that freedom is good.”

- tha J man -

[ All content within this post is opinion and/or informational ]

Today’s political environment resembles a mildly well organized circus. The citizen-generated content Jenkins credits with this circus, I believe, is really offering a unique opportunity to further develop political participation and understanding.

At the end of his essay Jenkins does mention, maybe this new content can move us toward “deeper political engagement”. The article gives me the sense that Jenkins thinks the ability of non-serious news and/or amateurs to reach a large political audience could spell doom for our political system. However, in the history of our political system, technology has always effected voter turn out and campaign process.

At one point a good train and loud voice were desirable of a candidate.. Later it was a firm radio voice, and then JFK and his pretty face. The point is, our political system is designed to change with the times and in the words of Dylan, ‘these times are a changin’.

Jenkins cited statistics regarding TV’s efforts to educate voters. The networks are still the largest provider of political information; however, comedy news is slowly catching ground. Shows, like Jon Stewart’s ‘Daily Show’, are providing political news and information to a growing number of people. In the past four years this number of people has grown 9 percent to 21 percent overall. I don’t think young adults, like me, are watching these shows simply for their humor, and as Jenkins mentions, they offer more live coverage than ABC, CBS and NBC.

My largest critique of Jenkins’ position in that he has concentrated on the wrong medium of information. Most young eligible voters would just as easily watch the Daily Show from Comedy Central’s website and simultaneously have a live web feed from a political convention, going at the same time.

If politicians want to get their voices heard and give some more stability to the political process; they need to embrace change in their political process and campaign strategies to utilize the new technology. YouTube is an example of bettering the political process through technology. Earlier this year CNN hosted a debate in which the Democratic Presidential candidates were given video questions from YouTube members across the country; YouTube is free for its members. I think using YouTube for those types of processes is exactly the kind of effective, advanced, grassroots technique that Donald Green would approve of.

Green had an different opinion about citizen-generated content. He felt that the comedy shows and MTV “vote parties” have little effect on voters. I would agree that those TV shows aren’t as opinion forming as the numbers show. However, the accessibility of online forms, videos, graphics, etc. can shift the opinions of a vast numbers of voters, in a short amount of time, with little too no cost. That can ROCK the VOTE.

Also, as any newspaper savvy person will tell you, the average reading ability of an American is rather low. This does not mix well with complicated politics. Our new media provides a great deal of information, some complicated and some simple. This allows someone to gain a political understanding without feeling overwhelmed or stupid and in response, simply not voting. I’ve always thought this illustration explain a very complex justice system in very simple terms, JUSTICE

Wow, I found this video after that last paragraph about simplification and I think its perfect, Hilary vs. Obama. The video covered nearly every issue in the campaign between Hilary and Obama, along with all the negative issues. Mixed together it all sounds like the mess it really is. I think showing this race as the name calling battle it is, is useful for voters. We need fresh perspectives on politics and a fresh method of storytelling. This video does an excellent job of telling the campaign’s story to young voters.

- tha J man -

[ All content within this post is opinion and/or informational ]