Ethics in the age of instant accessibility…

As stated with my previous posting, “From Stage to Screen(s)”, with today’s new, emerging technologies being created faster and faster, copyright infringement is something that we, as artists, creators, educators, or collaborators, need to be constantly vigilant about. No longer a simple, clear-cut legal matter – whether it is part of a theatrical production, a movie, a piece of artwork, or writing – don’t you want to keep the right to your intellectual property? Don’t you think that other artists/creators wish the same?

The future of ethics in multimedia and the Internet is definitely still an unclear one. However there are some certainties. For example, every day there are more ways, and more places, to steal music and movies. People are armed with cell phones equipped with still cameras, video cameras, and sound recording devices. The “Big Brother” that we had always envisioned as a world full of video cameras to monitor our daily routines courtesy of the government I believe to be inaccurate. It is our own neighbors who are spying on us.

This is not a conspiracy viewpoint. Things like this happen all the time, and usually end up as a post on YouTube. Most recently, for instance, Olympic champion Michael Phelps was a victim of this. What he did privately on his own time was posted on YouTube for everyone to see and was the starting point for a big scandal that could have ruined his career. Without a doubt, what he was doing was wrong and illegal, but it was still done privately and still deserves a certain level of expected privacy, which was broken by a friend of his.

Movie and music piracy is big business on the Internet. The world of free music as you used to find on Napster are long gone. It is important to protect the works of others, and to pay them when money is due. After Napster was sued, free music became an underground business. Still thriving today, it is difficult to track or regulate how many songs per hour are being ripped off.

With the technology that we currently have at our hands, and more being created and becoming accessible, there will be more and more infringements of protected works by ordinary people, not just criminals. There are programs that one can download to “help” in your endeavors. Some examples include a program that will protect your IP address and another that will record fake searches made by the computer to hide what is really being searched for at search engines like Yahoo! and Google. All of these things make it easier to rip off someone else’s work.

Another example of where one should display ethical behavior is on sites like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). AIM not only provides a way to chat with friends, but also provided an outlet for kids to endlessly taunt kids they would normally pick on solely at school. Things like this used to end with the end of the school day but can now continue long into the night. Sites like Facebook and MySpace also provide the same sort of uncensored outlet. There is no one to patrol these sites, so it goes on unseen. These problems, sadly, finally came to a head when a parent was accused of taunting the classmate of her daughter to the point of the girl’s suicide. The adult used and assumed a name in a false account.

As mentioned, the murkier side of all this instant accessibility is plainly visible. With today’s technology anybody can be a filmmaker. The camera might be a cell phone and thus have poor quality and a short duration but a movie can be made. So what to do with the video? What does that mean ethically? Well, ultimately it up to us to decide and to police. These issues it seems are only coming to light now but certainly more questions of ethics will arise as new electronic devices push their way into our homes and our lives.

---

Legal positivism is a school of thought in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. The principal claims of legal positivism are that:
• There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.
• Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.
• Laws must follow the rules of determinism.

From Stage to Screen(s): “New Media” needs to be paid closer attention!

Take a look around at today’s busy world. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s undoubtedly easier to watch a show on the run than sit locked in a theatre or cinema for a few hours? Portable devices, ranging from a semi-basic cell phone to the iPod Touch to a laptop, allow viewers instant access anywhere at anytime. But is there a price tag on that instant accessibility?

In theatre, many musicals have taken the journey from stage to screen. For some, it was a rocky road and the show arrived damaged. Others took the “safe” route and the film arrived simply as a good documentation of the stage version. Still others followed creative and aggressive paths and in doing so, exceeded their staged counterparts. Several examples of shows that have made the leap from stage production straight to movie blockbuster throughout the decades are 1776, Annie, Bye Bye Birdie, Cabaret, Carousel, Chicago, A Chorus Line, Dreamgirls, Evita, The Fantasticks, Fiddler on the Roof, Godspell, Grease, Guys & Dolls, Gypsy, Jesus Christ Superstar, The King and I, Little Shop of Horrors, Mame, The Music Man, My Fair Lady, Oliver!, The Phantom of the Opera, The Producers, Rent, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Sound of Music, South Pacific, West Side Story, The Wiz…and the list continues. These productions were clearly collaborative efforts to turn the shows into movies and thus make the shows more accessible to audiences worldwide.

The murkier side of instant accessibility though is also plainly visible. With today’s technology anybody can be a filmmaker. The camera might be a cell phone and thus have poor quality and a short duration but a movie can be made. What happens if that person is sitting in the audience of Broadway’s hottest new production? Avoid the ushers, shoot some video, upload to YouTube (instantly from your seat), and Ta-Da! instant Internet sensation! A quick search on YouTube for two theatres I have worked for, “Tilles Center” (in NY) yielded 73 results and the query “Gateway Playhouse” (also in NY) returned results of 77 videos(at time of this posting)! Now, granted, some of the videos were created by the public relations department and act as mini-commercials to entice more audience members. In which case, I personally think that’s a fantastic marriage between the two worlds of video and stage. Why not use all possible resources? However, most of the video submissions seem to be from the general population. Yes, they are of low-res quality. Yes, as previously mentioned, they are usually short films (ranging from thirty seconds to maybe three minutes). No, people do not appear to be taking credit for any aspect of the production. Does that mean that the audience has the right to distribute this intellectual property? Legally, no. The lighting/set/sound/costume/makeup designs are all copyrighted by the designers. The choreographer has the legal right of his or her work. And ultimately it is all tied together by the director’s unique vision.

“But wait!” you might argue “It does generate some good buzz!!” (for better or worse depending on the performance). Yes, that can be true. And if the show/production/event has a long enough run it might bring out more audience members and generate some more revenue. For example, on YouTube’s blog, Michele Flannery wrote an authorized (keyword!) article about this year’s SXSW festival in Austin, Texas: “(SXSW has) just launched a robust YouTube channel that offers a peek into the panels, screenings and music showcases that define the 10-day event… For those of you who couldn’t make it to Austin this year, we hope YouTube helps you discover a few things that were captured deep in the heart of Texas.” The article combined with the new channel created a great advertisement plug for the popular annual interactive festival and an easy way to view the film and multimedia submissions in their true non-static format. (For full details and more information, click here.)

That still does not mean that any person besides the original creator/owner has the right to publish extra information about the work. Recent history brought that point to light in the instance of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike in 2008. This group represents the writers of television series, commercials, and movies. The WGA negotiates a new basic contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) every three years. This contract is called the Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA). In 2007, negotiations over the MBA reached an impasse and a strike officially began on Monday, November 5, 2007. Lasting for 100 days, the negotiators discussed many proposals from both sides regarding the new contract. There were several key issues of contention including DVD residuals, union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers, and compensation for “new media” (content written for or distributed through emerging digital technology such as the Internet) – aspects that went unconsidered in previous contract negotiations because the technology simply hadn’t been there.

The WGA had no arrangement with the companies regarding the use of content online. Two models of Internet distribution were being negotiated. The first was “electronic sell-through” (also known as “Internet sales” or “digital sell-through”). In electronic sell-through, the consumer purchases a copy of the program and downloads it to a local storage device for subsequent viewing at their convenience. Examples of this include movies and television shows purchased through the iTunes Store or Amazon’s Video on Demand. In the second model, “streaming video”, the consumer watches a program in real time as it is transmitted to their computer but is usually not saved. Current examples of this model include advertising-supported television programs streamed free to the audience, such as those available at major television stations’ websites (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX), through particular shows such as The Daily Show, or through the increasingly popular Hulu.com. In either case, the program may be viewed directly on a computer or on a traditional television via media distribution devices (i.e. TiVo). The convenience of both these technologies lowers the barriers to entry into the digital distribution marketplace making it more accessible to mainstream consumers.

It should be noted that it is widely expected by industry observers that new media will eventually supplant both DVD in the home video market and television in the broadcasting market as the primary means for distribution. In the mid-1980s, the companies had argued that new media still represented an unproven and untested market and asked for additional time for study. However, feeling resentment from the stale 20-year-old home video deal and unwilling to make similar concessions in a so-called “new market” yet again, WGA members remained adamant that whatever deal they made for new media, it could not resemble the old DVD formula. Writer-director Craig Mazin, of Scary Movie 3, had dubbed new media “the One Issue” that mattered in the negotiations. Writer Howard Gould, at a meeting of the full WGA membership the night before the strike date was announced, further articulated this sentiment. He said,

“Soon, when computers and your TV are connected, that’s how we’re all going to watch. Okay? Those residuals are going to go from what they are towards zero if we don’t make a stand now. … This is such a big issue that if they see us roll over on this without making a stand – three years from now, they’re gonna be back for something else. … I might have been the most moderate one up here when we started, but I sat there in the room the first day and they read us those thirty-two pages of rollbacks. And what they wanted us to hear was that ‘if you don’t give us what [we] want on the important thing, we’re gonna come after you for all those other things.’ But what I heard was, if we give them that thing, they’ll still come after us for those other things. And in three years, it’ll be ‘we want to revamp the whole residual system,’ and in another three years, it’ll be ‘y’know what, we don’t really want to fund the health fund the way we’ve been.’ And then it will be pension. And then it’ll be credit determination. And there just is that time when everybody has to see—this is one where we just gotta stand our ground.”

The negotiators and the WGA eventually came to an agreement that acknowledged the growing spread of the WGA’s work across new mediums and will properly compensate for that expansion.

The new media issue might have been resolved for the Writers Guild but it is only a temporary fix. Already planning for the 2011 labor negotiating cycle, the forward-looking Directors Guild of America (DGA)has hired new media consultancy Wolzien LLC to study the issues that were brought up at the WGA strike. Wolzien, whose principal (and apparently sole employee) is Tom Wolzien, was one of two consultancies that performed a similar function for the DGA leading up to the 2007-2008 negotiations. (The other firm has never been publicly identified.)

With today’s new, emerging technologies being created faster and faster, it is something that we, as artists, creators, educators, or collaborators, need to be vigilant about. Whether it is part of a theatrical production, a movie, a piece of artwork, or writing – Don’t you want keep the right to your intellectual property?

Information for this article is referenced from Jonathan Handel’s Blog “Digital Media Law” and from Wikipedia’s article on the WGA Strike. For more copyright information visit Copyright Alliance or US Copyright.

New news?

To sort of follow up on things, check out this blog posting regarding 3D Television.

Now Playing… (Part 2)

As mentioned in my previous posting, theatre as an interactive social medium has taken some interesting twists and turns throughout the last few years. No one knows for certain what the future might bring but it could bring instant and easy accessibility to viewers within the comforts of their own homes. So, what exactly does that mean?

Well, let’s first discuss who this hypothetical situation might affect most. It certainly depends on the performance but, generally speaking, theatregoers range in age from 25 to 65. The media and popular opinion say that young people have a natural affinity for digital technology, that they have become totally dependent on it, and that they are even becoming alienated from each other because of their addiction to it. Technology could be causing irreparable damage in all manner of unspeakable ways. Is this really true? Not necessarily. As mentioned, it is partly based on popular opinions. The nature of young people’s relationship with digital technology is definitely of vital importance. However, as important as it is to note that digital technology and its potential benefits are more prevalent in our society than ever before.

As mentioned in Julian Rolfe and Mischa Gilbert’s article, “Youth, new media, technology, and communication”, there can also be a class difference when it comes to technology. “One of the key findings for us was that accessibility and usage of digital technology is a class issue. The lower classes are far less likely to have information/communication technology at home and particularly at the workplace…Among the lower classes, an anti-technology stance is generally a result of fear of the unknown.” At the rate the world flattens though, it could be one day impossible to avoid at least some interactivity with technology. Also discovered by Rolfe and Gilbert, “In terms of media channels [young people] are disposed to, they watch and listen to a lot of TV and radio and frequent the cinema. They will only be into virals if they have a pass-on value, which gives them cultural currency.”

Speaking of currency, a notable trend in marketing communication has been the growing convergence of media entertainment and advertising over the last few years. As a recent article in Advertising Age notes, the intertwining of the two contents is not exactly new. For quite a few years, marketers have used strategies ranging from celebrity endorsement to music liscensing for television commercials to product placement in movies and television. If theatre becomes more similar to television, what happens to the marketing? Currently, much of the advertisement is done through the playbill. Will productions now contain more product placements? Will intermission now be a 15 minute commercial break?

Clearly, any form of theatre may offer any entertainment, but part of the experience is engaging with the story and fellow audience members. It stimulates social connections that can last well beyond the allocated two to three hours. No matter what happens in the future let’s hope that it will evolve into a uniquely developed form of interactive theatre that engages with and involves the audience and as always, will make theatre for people who wouldn’t normally experience it.

Now Playing: “Broadway in your backyard!”

Theatre, by nature, is a very socially interactive event. Currently, audiences all over the world flock to see the latest productions. The actors and crew work very hard to draw them into an imaginary world created using set, lighting, sound, and costume designs. Some state of the art companies even include projection design and stunning visual effects.

Now, what if that world was enhanced by virtual set design? Or hologramed actors, singers, dancers…even an entire orchestra?

If that sounds far-fetched check out these sites. The website for Musion Eyeliner System, explains how they were the holographic projection technology behind the animated band Gorillaz, who performed ‘live’ at the 2006 Grammy Awards. They also re-created a virtual version of pop icon, Madonna, who performed her hit single Hung Up on the same 3D stage. Both the live and TV audiences were stunned to find out that they were watching a virtual reality performance. To see for yourself click here.

Another more recent example is proven in the technology now appearing onstage in Broadway’s new Shrek the Musical. Customized software is being used to generate a digital face in the Magic Mirror, which speaks to the character Lord Farquaad in real-time during every performance. One unique trait of this technology is that it is not exclusive to its location. On December 8, 2008 the Mirror was featured on NBC’s Today Show and tested out by co-host Meredith Viera. For more information, check out this article written by magazine CG India.

Rapid technological advances are making the wildest dreams looking reasonable ideas within the near future. For example, there is no reason to not consider that Boris Karloff could one day star in Broadway’s Young Frankenstein. On a bigger scale, why not bring Broadway back to the comforts of your home? You could simply select the appropriate performance, download to your viewing station, and play. Viola! Broadway’s finest actors and dancers, past and present, are now moving and shaking across your living room floor.