Free Culture
A book written by Lessig in 2004.
Heavily criticizes the copyright laws of today, claiming them to hold back creativity, and be more focused on profits.
Lessig believes a more permissive form of copyright would harness creativity, allowing others to remix and reuse content to create better things.

Creative Commons
Founded by Laruence lessig in 2001.
A non-profit organization, rethinking the way copyright is used.
Bringing the ability to share work, and decide what aspects are allowed to be remixed/copied. For example, an artist can submit a piece of work, and choose whether it be used for commercial purposes or not. These licenses allow creators to claim intellectual property, indicating which rights they reserve, and which they waive (so can be used by others).
Creative Commons re-imagines the traditional copyright format, and encourages the recycling, and remixing of other work.

I find it interesting that the CC website has the licenses drawn up in “normal” and “legal jargon” type laguage.

This video is about the use of “how to…” videos on YouTube, and primarily uses my research paper, and hopefully expands upon it.
It includes a description of what I think a “how to…” video is, as well as various examples of varying types.

It also adds various theoretical elements such as Jean Burgess (author of the recent YouTube book), and Henry Jenkins (founder of the Participatory Culture Foundation), to hopefully emphasise and back up my points and beliefs.

It also delves into the territory of online guitar performances, such as funtwo, in an attempt to understand a possible underlying competitiveness within this group of YouTube stars/uploaders.

Bibliography

aronl (2008) How to 360 flip. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkE0JLaChJY [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

BLIP (2009) Burgess and Green YouTube Cover [Online image]. Available from: http://a.images.blip.tv/PatriciaGLange-ResearchOnYouTubesPopularVideos922.jpg [03/04/2010].

Burgess, J. (2008) ‘All your chocolate rain are belong to us?’ Viral Video, YouTube and the dynamics of participatory culture. In: Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, pp. 101-109.

Burgess, J. And Green, J. (2009) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, Cambridge: Polity.

CHRISTMAS TREE (2007) YouTube Logo [Online image]. Available from: http://www.christmastree.org/youtube.jpg. [25/01/2010].

CLIP ART OF (2008) Businessman Diver [Online image]. Available from: http://images.clipartof.com/small/15247-Successful-Businessman-Standing-At-The-Edge-Of-A-Diving-Board-At-The-Top-Of-A-Tall-Skyscraper-Building-Preparing-To-Jump-Into-A-Pool-With-Yellow-Inner-Tubes-Forming-The-Shape-Of-A-Dollar-Sign-Clipart-Illustration-Image.jpg [03/04/2010].

davegtar (2009)Awsome guitar solo. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23nUh3… [Accessed 23/11/2009].

DavidMeShot (2007)Best Guitar Improvisation Ever. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZM0EG… [Accessed 23/11/2009].

Flew, T. (2008) New Media: An Introduction (3rd Edition), South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

greencude (2008) iPhone Fire [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8nxYN4r47k [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

GUITAR AMP AND KEYBOARDS (2008) Various Guitar Images [Online image]. Available from: http://www.gak.co.uk [25/01/2010].

guitar1983 (2009)Canon Rock: The Best. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2u7uK… [Accessed 23/11/2009].

guitar90 (2005) guitar. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5fa… [Accessed 03/11/2009].

Heffernand, V. (2006) Web Guitar Wizard Revealed at Last, New York Times. Available from [WWW] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/arts/television/27heff.html [Accessed 23/11/2009].

HENRY JENKINS (2008) Henry Jenkins [Online image]. Available from: http://www.henryjenkins.org/images/henry_headshot.jpg [25/01/2010].

IN PUBLISHING (2008) Meg Carter [Online image]. Available from: http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/images/kb/meg_carter.jpg [25/01/2010].

Insane Nutter (2007) Chris Rock How to not get your ass kicked by a cop! [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtx… [Accessed: 21/12/2010].

jasonwangster (2006) How to windmill [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftiC6jub71M [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

Jenkins, H. et al. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. [WWW] Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en… [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

Juhasz, A. (2008) Why Not (to) Teach on YouTube. In: Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube. Amsterdam, pp. 133-140.

Live (2009) Joe Satriani and Funtwo: YouTube Live [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBHfb2sVWV4 [Accessed: 22/02/2010].

Manovich, L. (2008) The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life. In: Lovink, G. and Niederer, S. (eds.) Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

nighahiga (2008) How to be gangster [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfhPFWloYIw [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

purkolator (2006) How to balloon bass [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkgkp1PCQuE [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

THE BODY (2009) Alex Juhasz [Online image]. Available from: http://www.thebody.com/visualaids/australia/images/photos1/Alex_Juhasz.jpg [03/04/2010].

Thecomputernerd01 (2008) World’s Greatest Guitar Hero [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSbuc6EEFI [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

ultimatehandyman (2009) How to fix a leaking tap [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1iGLiUCDqI [Accessed: 25/01/2010].

Uzoouk (2008) Funny Dog Dancing. [online video]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNp7Pr… [Accessed: 28/01/2010].

WORDPRESS (2008) Gorilla Scratching Head [Online image]. Available from: http://donaldb.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/gorillascratchinghead.jpg [25/01/2010].

Music

Too True (2009) Secrets of the World. Trapped Under Ice.

??? (2008) Always. Make It Through.

Raining Blood (1986) Reign In Blood. Slayer. American.

Death (2009) Forgotten Soul. Brutality Will Prevail. Purgatory Records.

Dry Ice (2008) The Respect Issue. Emmure. Rise.

[In terms of the beloved how to video the only relevant uploads are normally either spoofs, or are directly lifted from existing television or film, rather than being brand new content developed purely for the web.]
[[[[[intersperse with shots of actual video]]]]
[Chris Rock’s How not to get your ass kicked by the police! Video is a perfect example this. The uploader (Insane Nutter) is in no way affiliated with Chris Rock, or the television show, so i in a way are these “professional” videos user-generated? Without the uploader, would they be available to as wide an audience?]

[Jenkins continues to suggest that within this idea of teaching and learning: there ‘[is] some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices’.]
[[[[lip-dub]]]]
[Isn’t this the purpose of “How to...” videos: Sharing knowledge with other users? Or is there more of a “knowledge is power” effect actually present within this YouTube community: a competitive culture if you will.]

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[the rest is at the moment my paper, but i am going to drastically change this, and elaborate on the subject matter - also make it interesting to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
To elaborate on this, we will sample online guitar performance videos. In a 2006 NY Times article Heffernan described these guitar performances as ‘carrying a modesty clause’, where the players often ‘exhibit a kind of anti-showmanship’. The guitarist funtwo (real name Joeng-Hyung Lim), features in one of the most discussed and viewed videos (if not the most), both in this particular genre, and on YouTube as a whole: simply titled ‘guitar’ . In the same article, when asked what he thought of all the attention/views/comments he had garnered from the video he replied “Some said my vibrato is quite sloppy…and I agree that so these days I’m doing my best to improve my vibrato skill.” This is certainly a very modest statement to make from a man being referred to as ‘better than Jimmi Hendrix’ by some YouTubers, but is this always the case of all online guitar performances? Does this “modesty-clause” apply to all online guitar performances?
At the time of writing, there are just over 2,500 video responses to ‘guitar’, with approximately half of these being guitar, or instrument based. ‘Awsome guitar solo’ is one of the first encountered, taking the format of the player sat in a bedroom playing guitar – a very similar setup to that of the original funtwo video. This modesty theory has clearly already being abandoned by simply titling the video ‘awesome’ – connoting a high skill level of the player. Another, titled ‘Guitar – Canon (The best)’ once again expresses this “be-the-best” competitive element of YouTube. The title gives the impression of a certain level of arrogance from the uploader, and suggests there is a level of competitiveness between at least some member so this community. There are however exceptions – ‘Best Guitar Improvisation Ever’ being a prime example. In this case, the video has taken a more comical slant on the original funtwo: depicting a similar mis-en-scene, instead the player is however not as skilled. The video responses to ‘guitar’ thus tend to fall into the following three categories: spam or attempts to gain more views; parody or comically based; and the third being a challenger to the crown of either the original song, or online guitar performances in general. Again, this asks the question, is it the content that is most important to viewers: Is this the reason why some uploaders boast and distort in titles and descriptions, as a way to entice prospective viewers with promises of content not necessarily present?
Concentrating now on tutorial videos on the whole, this teaching and learning aspect within Participatory Culture is described by Jenkins as a ‘reciprocal exchange of knowledge’ – users are adding their own ideas to a pool of videos that are accessible to all wishing to learn. Juhasz (2008) however, has a contrasting opinion: ‘[YouTube’s] compelling lack of depth and expertise, and it’s all but disappeared procedures of coherence, order, and forced attention – made it poor for education.’ Admittedly, there are a variety of different ‘genres’ of YouTube videos available: viewing a ‘Funny Dancing Dog’ is not relevant learning for the majority of users, however, this does not mean there is no source of learning located on YouTube. Watching others play instruments for example is a mimicable form of learning, only not in the more traditional ‘classroom’ style.
A report commissioned by the MacArthur Foundation (2008) found that youths were using YouTube (and other web 2.0 sites) to ‘dive-in to a topic..turn[ing] to specialized knowledge groups around the country or world..with the goal of improving their craft’, known as ‘geeking-out’. By posting, commenting and responding to videos, users are interacting with other users interested in the same or similar subject. A video (‘Modern Warfare 2 Create A Class And Help Tips’ ) depicting character class ideas for the multiplayer aspect of a videogame is a prime example of this ‘geek-out’ interest. Instead of the usual flaming and trolling associated with the online gaming community, the comments section is alive with tips and suggestions to other gamers.
Burgess (2009) suggests ‘online video invites participation and rewards repetition and ongoing engagement.’ Whilst this may be apparent in videos such as ‘guitar’ (the constant barrage of new responses being uploaded), and to a lesser extent ‘Modern Warfare 2…’ (as the games popularity diminishes, it is inevitable the video will do the same), this is not necessarily relevant to the more typical “how to…” videos. These tend to be a simple, “search for video-get result-possibly leave comment” type affair, rather than this ongoing participation that Burgess suggests. These videos are not necessarily internet fads, or virals: they are simply available to access when required due to the content included.
As web 2.0 and YouTube are becoming ever more prominent in society, it is logical to believe that its use will affect the way we learn, and possibly what we choose to learn about. With a breadth of knowledge available, users will continue to both share and learn, with simple tutorial videos being one of the more prominent ways to do so. This “Google Culture” (where users are expecting an instant answer) inevitably plays a role in the shaping and use of tutorial videos, but does this mean users are using websites such as YouTube to access this knowledge, rather than search engines or older analogue methods? Do users necessarily trust the information they find within these videos? These are several issues I hope to evolve in my upcoming research documentary. Regardless of this, Jenkins’ (2008) idea of a ‘reciprocal exchange of knowledge’ looks sure to continue, and prosper with the development of the web

meg carter image

[possibly same start as first video? Plug/windows startup sounds/modem noise] – (approx 5-10 seconds)
[[[[title plays]]]] – (approx 10-15 seconds)

[[[what is a how to video section]]]]

How to videos are typically step-by-step guides, and often a simple piece-to-camera. They usually are of relatively low quality: the subject of said videos will typically be talking to camera; narrating over the footage (like me now!);
or {replaced by captions} ((((this section actually replaced by captions rather than narration))))

[[this section will be spruced up with various shots of other videos]].

Whilst the video quality ranges from webcam/mobile phone camera to high quality home camcorder. The quality is then often reduced more so due to high compression ratios, in order to limit video size files for upload, and possibly due to lack of knowledge by the user (YouTube is available for all, so it is probable to assume that not all uploaders are knowledgeable in all technological aspects).

[[shots - addtionally myself to camera with quality varying depending on what is said, ie. webcam=bad quality, interspersed with shots of webcam and camcorder as said]].

However, the quality still doesn’t seem to deter users from watching these, or any videos on youtube.
Taking jasonwangters “windmill” [[[show video clip here]]] as an example. The footage is very low quality, and the editing is done with what looks like windows movie maker, but the audience it has reached is phenomenal, gathering over 2 millions views.

Jenkins writes that participatory culture offers us ‘…relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civil engagement’ – essentially that anyone can make the content, as the production values in this case don’t have to be Hollywood blockbusters.

In contrast, GiR2007’s Pancakes II: Pancakes on your face is one of the relatively few more “high-end” of the production spectrum tutorial videos found on YouTube. However, as with the majority of said tutorials, the content is still user-generated.

questions to answer?!?1//
[do users use YouTube to find anwers to things, rather than google/more analogue methods etc.]

Probably the majority will come from the exiting research paper
Possibly including older information from previous 2 videos.

Need to write a script, and before this a treatment type thing, to give me an idea of how to present the vid.

Read through research paper and take out pieces to fit into vid – order this in a similar way to paper maybe?
- begin by informing what a “how to ” video is etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftiC6jub71M – explain this video, and link into how it is essentially everything described above, and also it has nearly 2million views>
Then talk about professional how to – chris rock, and pancake man – the differences between them. But are they more spoof?
Then use guardian article about how money is being spent more on online video by tv producers – link this in to chris rock video: which isn’t actually made for YouTube. Are a lot of these videos simply TV shows uploaded to YouTube, rather than content created specifically for it?

There seems to be little with high end production values.
However, there are a few that are slightly more “professional” in that respect – the pancake man, chris rock’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8 – this is however taken from a tv show, and directly uploaded, so isn’t technically user-generated content. It is also worth noting that it is a spoof, rather than a genuine “teaching” video.
Perhaps there is, or was an unwillingness for TV production companies to concentrate on online video? “Digital tribes – online video – guardian”

YouTube, and participatory culture.
I then hope to establish how participatory culture and YouTube are related – what aspects of YouTube make it participatory, and what aspects are more similar to traditional “analogue” media ie. Certain researcher finding that the majority of users are only using YouTube to simply watch videos, rather than comment or add own content.
“The architecture of YouTube does not overly invite community-building, collaboration or purposeful group-work…[T]he websites visual design is consistently dominated by thumbnails of videos, not user profiles, groups, or conversations” – Burgess and Green (2009) p.63
‘…According to 2007 statistics, only between 0.5 – 1.5 percent of the users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained consumers of the content produced by this small group’ (Manovich 2008, pp.33-34)
These two quotes are fairly relevant to this – is YouTube actually that Participatory?

The trend and development of Media has made it much more accessible and easier to interact with in recent times. We are living in an age where content is readily available via the web (and various other services such as Sky Player) giving us access to whatever we desire, as well as the ability to respond to what we have seen (or in some cases, not seen), and interact with others at the click of a mouse. Audiences now have the ability to become creators and distributors of content, publishing works that other users can then choose to watch and/or comment on. This is Participatory Culture: the “convergence of the three C’s” (Flew, 2008), Communications, Computing and Content becoming one (a Convergence Culture), integrated with a shift in the abilities of the audience/consumers. Audiences are no longer limited to being simply an audience: this transition of roles within the Media, combined with Flew’s theory of Convergence, is what has formed the idea of Participatory Culture.

YouTube, and participatory culture.
I then hope to establish how participatory culture and YouTube are related – what aspects of YouTube make it participatory, and what aspects are more similar to traditional “analogue” media ie. Certain researcher finding that the majority of users are only using YouTube to simply watch videos, rather than comment or add own content.
“The architecture of YouTube does not overly invite community-building, collaboration or purposeful group-work…[T]he websites visual design is consistently dominated by thumbnails of videos, not user profiles, groups, or conversations” – Burgess and Green (2009) p.63
‘…According to 2007 statistics, only between 0.5 – 1.5 percent of the users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained consumers of the content produced by this small group’ (Manovich 2008, pp.33-34)
These two quotes are fairly relevant to this – is YouTube actually that Participatory?

being able to comment and interact greatly, and easier with Media than ever before

Bibliography
Flew, T. (2008) New Media: An Introduction (3rd Edition), South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.