Within your breakout room, describe your interpretation of the quote from Spigel and Manovich essays. Assign someone in your room to discuss the interpretation when we rejoin the full class session.
Page numbers are from Laurie Ouellette, ed. The Media Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 2013).
“Conceived as a form of labor, the work of being watched can be critiqued in terms of power and differential access to both the means of surveillance and the benefits derived from their deployment” (493).
“The more promising approach, from a corporate perspective, has been to attempt to reposition surveillance as a form of consumer control. The popular reception of the Internet as a means of democratizing mediated interaction and surpassing one-way, top-down mass media certainly works in favor of this attempt” (498).
“Making markets more efficient, according to this model, means surpassing the paradigm of mass market and its associated inefficiencies, including the cost of gathering demographic information, of storing inventory, and of attempting to sell a mass-produced product at a standardized price. Interactive media combined with the development of computer memory and processing speed allow for the comprehensive forms of surveillance crucial to the scientific management of consumption within the digital enclosure” (502).
“We conclude that the Big Five seek a trans-dimensional extension of copyright law and leak-proof control of distribution channels through legislation, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, and anti-copying technologies. These actions have marked the first stage of Old Economy power over on-line delivery of music, video and text” (289).
“Copyright litigation has been a successful stalling tactic, allowing the Big Five to reorganize their business relationships and sort out on-line delivery systems in a way that will preserve their de facto oligopoly of production and distribution… With few concessions to creators or consumers, the Big Five have disproved Internet Nirvana Theory by successfully using copyright enforcement to tighten their grip on Internet music distribution” (295-296).
“Napster also carried a strong populist appeal, harkening back to the digital bonhomie of the early Internet, in which users traded files directly with each other. From the Napster network’s perspective, the larger the connected base of its peer-to-peer system, the greater the value of the network to creators, advertisers and consumers” (291).