Two years ago I decided to pursue a career in academics. 10 months ago I was losing my mind while applying to doctoral programs. 4 months ago I made my decision on where to go. 2.5 weeks ago I drove a moving truck for 17 hours from Boston to Raleigh. Today I found out that my Master's Project was approved. Thursday is my first class as part of the Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media Ph.D. program at North Carolina State University.

Everything is covered with cheese and bacon. Starbucks doesn't even put out the Non-Fat milk carafe because nobody uses it. It's been in the 90s and humid every day since I've been here. Going for a stroll outside is like pushing through a block of potato soup. There are lots of exotic, terrifying bugs. Many streets don't have sidewalks and people don't seem to understand pedestrians (returning to car ownership seems an inevitability).

All that being said, it's been a good change of pace for me so far. Aside from being excited to start the program, I really like almost everybody I've met. And while I don't know if I'll ever appreciate the give-and-take formalities, I like that there isn't a palpable misanthropy in the air around residents here like there is in Boston. On the sidewalks and subways up north, the mean score on the Niceness Scale is approximately "hostile." Here it's "generally pleasant." The food will make it hard for me to lose the pounds I gained while being tethered to my apartment for work and school over the last year, but the school actually has a lot of great facilities I'm excited to take advantage of (anyone else want to join the racquetball club?)

In sum, aside from probably needing a car and the sadness that comes with having to leave the people I care about, this is actually a pretty easy transition. And now with my Master's Project done and move completed, all I have to think about is slowly getting settled in my new home and, of course, the behemoth that is the CRDM program.

Yesterday I spent an hour organizing my Circa notebooks (I will miss you most of all, Levenger), which is something I have far too much fun doing.

I'm not really sure what I'm in for, but I'm ready to get started.

I am the Internet. Bring the pain.

I created my Twitter account shortly after the site launched, did a little ethnography project about it for a class assignment, then abandoned it for lack of personal utility. Well, I would seem to have joined the crowd now. No longer the new media heretic! (I still hate Apple, though). Username: Antisomniac.

Also discovered Blip.FM, which feels like it's a rehash of a tired Web 2.0 idea, but to me works much more effectively than social music broadcasting sites of yore. It interacts very well with FaceBook and Twitter, having been largely modeled after the latter.

The genius feature of Blip.FM, as far as I'm concerned, is the way it takes advantage of what YouTube has so curiously been appropriated for in recent years: song sharing. Search for any song, choose a version from one of multiple sources, and Blip it--with or without a short message. You can then share it with any of your social networks...or none at all, which is another clutch feature.

Blip.FM is its own pretty good social networking site in itself. DJs listen to each others' selections or, by default, a playlist that combines what all of your friends ("favorites") have been listening to, in reverse chronological order. An interesting "props" system does a good job of allocating credit where it's due.

MY BLIP.FM PROFILE

Nothing else.

The "Hitler finds out..." videos were removed by YouTube en masse recently at the request of its copyright holder, Constantin Film.

If you've missed this meme, the concept starts with a particular clip from the movie Downfall in which Adolf Hitler rages at his generals. The audio and video are left untouched, adding only subtitles that make the fuhrer appear to be angry about something else (the iPad, the death of Michael Jackson, and even the popularity or removal of these videos).

Presumably because of their popularity, I've heard a lot more outrage at YouTube about these clips being pulled than I have for any previously (well, except for Lukeywes1234).

Google/YouTube

Given YouTube's track record--and that of any reasonably big media hosting site--I don't understand why anyone is surprised. Before getting into legal details, it should be understood that no such business is going to get involved in defending the murky fair use rights of one of its users. YouTube, after all, is a huge target; and let's not forget it's generally the only entity profiting from any purported copyright infringement that occurs on its site. To avoid litigation, it therefore goes beyond DMCA requirements, offering a system to copyright holders that can automatically detect when certain content is uploaded and remove all offenders. It was through these tools that mass Hitler videcide occurred. [Note: I'm going to use the term "DMCA takedown request" even when I mean takedowns through these tools].

A takedown request is issued to the internet service provider/host, not the content creator. YouTube has to cover its ass, responding to DMCA requests effectively (quickly), because it, and probably not the uploader, is going to be the one in hot water for making the content available. They receive piles of these requests every day and have attracted a lot of heat for the volume of copyrighted material accessible through the site. Once ownership is established, the detection and removal tools mentioned above can be used. It's not their responsibility to determine whether or not the use is fair, only to find copyrighted content and remove it when the owner demands it (or to allow the owner to do it automatically).

The uploader whose video or account has been removed does, however, has recourse built into the law. There's a DMCA statute (17 U.S.C. § 512(f)) that allows damages to be collected from those companies that issue takedown notices without a good faith belief that the use is, in fact, an infringement of the owner's copyright (this basically means that to issue a statement to YouTube requesting content be taken down, you have to first determine that it isn't fair use). Also, YouTube content (including accounts) aren't simply deleted when in trouble for copyright issues; there is a window of time during which to respond, and videos are often reinstated.

I am not saying the Hitler videos being taken down was just; only responding to the backlash against YouTube. In the end, it's Google's house and their Terms of Use that you agreed to supercede what you legally have the right to say, own, or express, so if they need to protect themselves, your video will be taken down. Your role, if using the material fairly, is to go through the proper legal or Google channels--or host the video yourself so you'll get to be the one responding to DMCA notices or not.

Fair Use

Let's say, for the sake of conversation, these cases went to court. Whether or not fair use would hold up isn't clear (to me). Common sense may say the videos could actually help sales of the film, relatively unknown in America as it is. But that logic is harder to argue than "it gives away one of the most dramatic scenes in the movie, presented with no alteration to the audio or video other than subtitles."

Changing the meaning doesn't itself constitute fair use on parody grounds because it also has to be transformative, a term that requires heavy subjectivity to apply. From my limited experience, it typically means that if the work is derivative it must, at least in part, make some sort of commentary about the original (again heavily subjective). In the case of Hitler Finds Out There Is No Santa (these links probably temporary), you might argue that portraying a historical monster as a tantruming manchild is satire and thus probably considered parody. But the parody argument might be a little more difficult when it comes to Hitler Finds Out No Camera in Ipod Touch. Even moreso with metamemes like Hitler Reacts to the Hitler Parodies Being Removed from YouTube. Surely it can't be that you can distribute any movie as long as you put some text at the bottom of the screen.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of a massive overhaul to intellectual property law, including a broadened, more nuanced fair use test. I just find it odd that this hubbub (or fuhrer furor, because I'm clever) comes not for any of the other bazillion questionable YouTube takedowns, but in response to a 4 minute clip of a movie. Not a painting of a scene in a movie, play based on a movie, alternate audio, reenactment, or appropriation of dialogue--all of which have been subjects for copyright disputes--but actually the movie itself...with funny words underneath. Maybe it's just due to the popularity of the meme? All of these Hitler videos SHOULD be fair use, but I think only a few of them ARE fair use according to the law. I also think there's no other way for Google to do business but to remove first and ask questions later when the owner requests it.

Oh, and I'm not a lawyer; this is just my take on the situation.

Some related homework:

Fair use documents from American University's Center for Social Media, EFF, Stanford, the Brennan Center for Justice (NYU), and the United State Copyright Office.

Siva Vaidhyanathan's The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System

§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

Memes as Mechanisms: How Digital Subculture Informs the Real World (good article at Department of Alchemy about this meme written before the takedowns

Citizen Media Law Project blog post

Hitler "Downfall" Parodies Falling off YouTube over Copyright Claims

There are many cats in many videos on YouTube, many of them animated. To my knowledge, however, this is the only ASCII animation of a cat from 1968.

Dear everybody,

Stop reporting that "Anonymous" did something - and going so far as to even condemn "them" as though it's a remotely delineated group.

Anonymous has been around for millenia, lurking wherever real names and IDs are not required. Those writing about sensitive - or not even - subjects for years have signed their articles, letters, and comments "Anonymous" and no journalist ever referred to them as if they were a member of the same organization. It's like the police actually looking for a group of people who call themselves "John Doe" after the name kept popping up associated with various crimes.

On imageboards like 2chan, 4chan, and 7chan - massively popular, hyperactive, and diverse sites that are the source of a disproportionate amount of Internet culture - people who post something will, by default, by credited as "Anonymous." Likewise, many blogs and other websites will credit unnamed contributors as "Anonymous." At some point, it became a joke - and then a meme - that "Anonymous" was a real person. It became funny to refer to "Anonymous" as a personification of some aspect of Internet culture - an aspect that would vary depending on who is doing the referencing. When an idea to participate in some sort of event (or an idea to do something that could be seen as an event in hindsight) spreads across these sites and many, many others, "Anonymous" takes credit for it, purporting itself as a discrete entity. Sometimes specific plans are orchestrated, but far more often it takes the form of a bunch of people - mostly different people each time - working with loosely-related ideas towards the same vague concept (usually self-amusement/"lulz", but sometimes political).

Media who report on this spectre are simply perpetuating and encouraging the meme. But why now? Why does this Anonymous receive distinction?

Well, past anonymii never had a face.

When a group self-identifying as Anonymous waged a war on Scientology, it acquired a bit of notoriety. The group announced that "Anonymous" would be protesting, "Anonymous" sent messages to the Church of Scientology via YouTube, and "Anonymous" took credit for the DDoS attacks on the Church's websites. The heavy press these events received could largely be credited to the growing fashionability of Scientology-bashing at the time, but the reason people were so legitimizing of their existence as a distinct group was due to its members having not just a face, but a shared face - that of a Guy Fawkes mask, itself a meme. Henceforth, a group of people wearing Guy Fawkes masks would be recognizable as "Anonymous."

So why does it matter? Why am I complaining? Two reasons. First and foremost because this hurts the concept of anonymity in the public eye.

The communication construct that allows for safe dissent, whistle-blowing, and all manner of honesty is now synonymized with irresponsible pranks and destructive, inflammatory protest. Considering the preexisting dark underbelly of anonymity - providing shelter necessary to commit crimes - it doesn't need any more bad press.

The second reason I'm frustrated: Have you ever overheard a policial conversation in which the person arguing the side you agree with ideologically represents your cause in a horribly-informed, beligerant, or otherwise unsavory way? You know how you just kind of wish they would be on the other side?

Two years ago I was in a large MIT lecture hall for the event that would close ROFLCon - a super conference about Internet memes that will be happening again in a couple months (mark your calendars). There was a part towards the end during which people from the audience could come up to a microphone at the front and make comments about the weekend's events.

After some recited copypasta and an a cappella version of Never Gonna Give You Up, a group of Anonymii - who had been invited to talk about their war on Scientology - stormed the mic and blasted a $5 boombox into it while bobbing to Wu Tang. This went on for several minutes past when the microphone was shut off, prompting laughter, then annoyance, and finally hostility from the audience. Eventually they quit and I felt the distinct urge to give Scientology a second chance; perhaps I had unfairly dismissed that dreck.

They were invited to ROFLCon (via at least one or two real names, by the way) to talk about their group and Project Chanology, then were more or less asses to the conferencegoers.

Other events that have been attributed to Anonymous include the posting of bright, flashing-colored GIFs to an epilepsy forum; racism infiltrating virtual world of Habbo; countless instances of cyberstalking/bullying; and disguising pornography as children's videos on YouTube. Obviously, someone who isn't already convinced that say, Scientology is nonsense, won't be swayed by a group known for this stuff. To the contrary, maybe Scientology would be seen as in need of defense! That isn't to say that many of the videos, interviews, and methods weren't very good in terms of articulating their case and protesting; but for every well-spoken news interview, someone would make a bomb threat or post a picture of Tom Cruise eating feces.

So when Anonymous was recently credited with an (another) attack on multiple Australian government websites during what was known as Operation Titstorm, I facepalmed again. The impetus was Internet filtering legislation, something to which I am staunchly opposed. Despite Australian anti-censorship groups complaining that it hurt their cause, the DDoS attacks proceeded and were celebrated on the Chans (et al).

Operation Titstorm has been heavily covered already, so I'll just link; this post was just a product of "ANONYMOUS: STOP BEING ON MY SIDE" + "MEDIA: STOP CREDITING ANONYMOUS AS IF IT'S ACTUALLY THE SAME PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH EVENT" grief. Thank you. Disclosure: I actually like 4chan and have, at one time or another, been Anonymous.