The FAA has created a Google Map mash-up site listing the location of every single military installation in the USA. What a nice favor to, uh, law abiding airline pilots terrorist splinter cells and crazy white power militias.
Still, it's a pretty good mash-up. Check out SeeAndAvoid.org to play with it.
Seen on my pal Noah's Danger Room blog.
Mike Clancy over at the Village Voice's Runnin' Scared blog posted this great dance remix of Bill O'Reilly dropping the F-bomb. I particularly like the club-style appropriations of him dismissively saying "Go!".
Strangely, no Sue Simmons F-bomb remixes yet on GooTube.
UPDATE: Runnin' Scared posted another one. Good stuff.
Ever want to see Ronald McDonald and Hitler go at it head-to-head? Or how about God vs. a killer whale? Back when I was a bored teen, we could only fantasize about our ideal deathmatches. These days, if you can think it, you can make it happen.
Chris, a student in my Videogames class at NYU, recently hipped us to M.U.G.E.N., a free platform for creating characters and boards to use in a 2D, 2-player fighter. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of MUGEN characters available for free download from sites like this and this. Or, if that's not enough for you, you can make your own (just start with this video tutorial).
Below: Morrigan from Darkstalkers vs. Ronald McDonald (fighting in a BK parking lot).
Masha emailed me an interesting piece of news: cubicle totem Dilbert is going "Web 2.0" -- offering fans the ability to dynamically insert their own punchlines (take that, New Yorker!), and eventually to individually and collectively rewrite the entire strip.
Of course, there's nothing new about mashing up cartoons; what's new is the author giving you the tools and permission. That permission, by the way, is limited; mashers don't get any ownership stake in the product they help to produce, but according to the site's terms of service, they can share stuff noncommercially, as long as they don't piss anyone off:
United Media grants the users of the Web Site the limited, revocable permission to engage in Viral Content Distribution of such Collaborative Content as may from time to time be made available on the Web Site for such purpose.
One of my arguments about configurability is that it exposes cognitive processes that were once private and internal into the harsh (and/or nurturing) light of public scrutiny. Back in ye olden times, a composer would hear a bunch of influences, integrate and assemble those influences inside his skull, and expose us to the results. Now, we can listen live as this process happens, and even watch a DJ drag and drop samples and effects into Ableton Live.
The industrial side of the equation has a similar story arc. Once upon a time, we could buy a CD or vinyl record, and imagine what each of the parts sounded like on their own (apparently, this is part of the reason nonmusicians like to smoke pot and listen to music -- it allows them to hear the parts separately the way musicians do). Nowadays, musicians will often post the isolated component tracks (e.g. vocals, drums, guitar) to the internet, and invite fans to remix them (as Radiohead did recently).
Well, my crazy composer friend Scott Pinkmountain has taken things to the proverbial next level. He's a music analyst over at Pandora, and he's just produced a fascinating podcast episode for the site where he narrates his compositional decisions while he pulls the tracks of a song apart and reassembles them.
It's really entertaining stuff. Give it a listen.
There are already plenty of blog posts out there about the Harry Potter Lexicon fracas, but I've got to add my $0.02. In a nutshell, there's far more at stake here than simply a multibillion-dollar entertainment franchise, and the emotional stability and further creative output of a certain British author.
By suing the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon, Rowling is arguing for a very maximalist interpretation of the scope of copyright. This could have what we IP wonks refer to as a "chilling effect" on other people's creative work, and may paradoxically limit the ability of her fans to fully engage with her work (to say nothing of the negative PR value of the suit itself), depressing future revenues from this and other franchises.
Part of the problem is cultural. US and European IP laws are premised on very different notions of authorship. As the New York Times reported, a tearful Rowling "talked about the Potter books as if they were her children." This relationship, she suggested in her testimony, gives her a moral right and responsibility over the "lives" of her "children," wherever and however they may be used. This concept of "moral rights" is actually foundational to continental copyright laws, but in the US (where she's prosecuting the suit), we hold no truck with that kind of sentimental argument. To paraphrase Dylan, beyond a certain point, authors' "sons and daughters are beyond their command."
Of course, where that "certain point" lies is the subject of endless argument and negotiation. And, as people like Lessig and Vaidhyanathan have persuasively argued, even in the good old U.S. of A., the scope of authorial control over creative works has consistently expanded since the framers of the Constitution first granted Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." A few decades ago, the idea that an alphabetized resource listing factual data about the characters and themes of a published book would be subject to sanction by the book's author would have seemed absurd; neither collections of facts nor characters nor plot elements were protected by US copyright laws. Today, in the wake of the Alice Randall nonsense, Rowling's chances of success -- or at least a satisfying settlement agreement -- seem far greater.
This post is too long already, but one more thing about Rowling's argument really bothers me: her claim that, as the NYT put it, the Lexicon "would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998." The argument contains the seeds of its own undoing. First of all, she is asking the court to assess market harm against a product that doesn't exist yet, and the only proof of whose eventual existence is the plaintiff's own claim. Second, even if we believe in the veracity of her claims, the decade-long gap between creative impetus (1998) and announced plans (2008) is itself an argument against granting authors permanent exclusive control over the lives of their characters; quite simply, there isn't enough J.K. Rowling to go around. The world demands more Harry Potter than she can produce, and even her best intentions (the proceeds were earmarked for charity, the billionairess claimed) weren't enough to get the project off the ground, after a decade.
There's much, much more here to discuss, but I've got to prepare to teach my copyright class in a few minutes...
UPDATE
Karl of QuestionCopyright writes:
Of course, I completely agree with what you write.
Personally, I wouldn't even list the possibility of "depressing future
revenues from this and other franchises", because that implies that
perhaps if she'd taken actions to *increase* such revenues, they would
be inherently justifiable. In other words: it's true that she's acting
against her own interests here, but what bothers us is that she's acting
against everyone *else's* interests. If she suddenly started acting in
her own interests, but still against everyone else's, that wouldn't be
any better.
This position that her books are like her children... even if it were
not a misplaced sentimental indulgence (especially from someone who has
real children), it would be inappropriate to invoke. After all, no
one's doing anything to any of her children! Her books are still there,
as they always were. Imagine if another parent observes how you educate
your kid and then gives their kid a similar education, thus turning out
a similar kid. Who would object to that on the grounds that the second
kid is too similar? Wouldn't you *want* the world to be full of kids
your kid could play with? Sheesh. Dumb metaphor anyway.
It's just censorship, plain and simple. We ought to call it by its
right name. As a writer -- and in particular, as a highly derivative
writer, not that there's anything wrong with that -- you'd think Rowling
would get this. She's comfortable building on all the mythology she
received for free, because it's out there in the culture, but she
doesn't seem to understand that the way things get out there into the
culture is by people copying and building on stuff. Her position is
apparently that although all the pre-existing things she included in her
books are just part of the culture, her books themselves *aren't* a new
part of that culture, because... uh, somehow, they're special? Because
the author is alive? Because it's modern times now and so we're not
creating new culture?
It's a bizarre feat of re-categorization, really.
(I'd have left this as a comment on your blog, but typepad requires one
to create an account.)
I love this Wii commercial mash-up, puncturing the Wii's family-friendly marketing, rooted around antiseptic videos of happy families wielding their wiimotes, by intercutting it with live footage from the infamous Manhunt 2 for Wii. This is kind of like a tweak on the regenrification of movie trailers that was so big two years ago, but with more of an interventionist slant.
Following on the heels of its market-shaking pay-your-own-price scheme for the album In Rainbows, Radiohead's mixing it up again by offering "stems" from its new single, "Nude," via iTunes for fans to download and remix. Remixes can be posted at a dedicated web site, where other fans can vote on their favorites. There's no official prize or competition, but you've got to figure the exposure for having the top remix will be potentially career-changing.
As with In Rainbows, what's interesting here isn't the plan itself -- musicians have been posting their tracks online for fans to remix for a decade. It's that Radiohead, long a major label darling safely ensconced behind EMI's garden walls, is stepping out and proactively pursuing new business and distribution models (the remixes can even be shared via Facebook widgets -- wow, these guys are on top of the Web 2.0 thing).
I do have a few quibbles and reservations, however.
First, what really fascinates me is that Radiohead is charging for the "stems" -- essentially, consumers will be paying six times for a single song -- once for the whole thing, and once for each isolated track. I haven't yet decided whether this is disgusting fan-exploitation and the reprehensible commercialization of the configurable public sphere, or a brilliant natural evolution of the music industry, following consumer demand where it's naturally leading. Maybe both.
My second beef, however, is much more serious. According to the terms and conditions, remixers -- even those who compose and perform their own additional tracks in their remixes -- will have zero stake whatsoever in the resulting song. No ownership of publishing or masters, no credit. Period. This is just plain wrong, and is the antithesis of everything that makes configurable culture great. If you're going to exploit the emerging demand for remixed content, and encourage people to participate in the co-production of cultural material, you need to provide a legal and ethical infrastructure that reflects those decisions. Otherwise, you're just continuing the monopolization of cultural production. Boo on Radiohead.
Here's a list of the terms and conditions, see for yourself:
You (the Entrant) hereby agree, confirm, represent and warrant that:
1. all rights in and to any remixed versions (“Remixes”) of the song “Nude” (“the Song”) created by the Entrant shall be owned by Warner/Chappell Music Ltd (“WCM”) and to the extent necessary the Entrant hereby assigns all rights in the Remixes of the Song to WCM throughout the World for the full life of copyright and any and all extensions and renewals thereof. If requested by WCM, the Entrant shall complete and sign a formal assignment of copyright to give effect to the foregoing;
2. all rights in and to any Remixes of the original sound recording of the Song (“the Master”) created by the Entrant shall be owned by _Xurbia _Xendless Ltd (“Xurbia”) and to the extent necessary the Entrant hereby assigns all rights in the Remixes of the Master to Xurbia throughout the World for the full life of copyright and any and all extensions and renewals there. If requested by Xurbia, the Entrant shall complete and sign a formal assignment of copyright to give effect to the foregoing;
3. Thom Yorke, Jonny Greenwood, Colin Greenwood, Ed O’Brien and Phil Selway will be registered and credited as the sole writers and WCM the publishers of the Remixes of the Song created by the Entrant;
4. the Entrant will not acquire a copyright interest in the Song by virtue of creating Remixes of the Song;
5. the Entrant will not use any other elements or parts of the Song (“Stems”) otherwise than to create Remixes of the Song for entry into radioheadremix.com;
6. the Remixes of the Song do not incorporate any samples which are subject to third party proprietary rights or otherwise infringe the rights of any third party;
7. the Remixes of the Song are not obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encouraging of conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability, or violate any law; and
8. the Entrant will not exploit, or allow others to exploit, the Remixes of the Song created by the Entrant without seeking the prior approval of WCM and Xurbia.
In submitting Remixes to radioheadremix.com the Entrant confirms and warrants that they have full power and authority to enter into this agreement and hereby indemnify WCM and Xurbia from and against any and all costs and damages incurred as a result of any breach of the representations and warranties made by the Entrant herein.
9. by participating in Radiohead Remix, entrants agree to release and hold harmless Apple and its affiliates from and against any claim or cause of action arising out of such participation.
I'm hardly the first to blog about it, but the video for Erykah Badu's new single, Honey, is worth taking a look at if you haven't seen it. Badu has always worn her aesthetic influences on her sleeve, but in this video, the metaphor is stretched a bit -- she wears them on record sleeves.
The video filters R&B nostalgia through a configurable lens, featuring Badu lip synching to her song on a variety of classic album cover remakes from a broad range of artists -- De La Soul, Chaka Khan, The Beatles, and Nas, to name a few. I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect visual metaphor for her (compelling) schtick -- the sonic fusion of Afrodiasporic musics, old and new, into a forceful and fluid oral cultural history, aided and abetted by configurable technologies.
Lest I sound too much like an academic geek, let me also say that this is a dope track, with a bumpin' bass and a sweet, melismatic melody. Like much of her work, it's equally at home with on the dance floor or in the boudoir. I'm definitely going to be spending some time with this album.
If you're one to trace sources -- Which album cover was that one!?!? -- check out Soulbounce's side-by-side comparisons of the original album covers and the Honey mock-ups.
Also note that, counter to the spirit of creative reappropriation and homage that characterizes the song and video, Universal Music Group has (as usual) disabled embedding of their official YouTube release of the track. What that's supposed to achieve, other than pissing off bloggers, I'm not sure. It was very easy for me to find another version to embed, so they haven't thwarted my piratical intentions. Also, I'm gonna bet that UMG didn't get permission/pay fees to use all the LP artwork -- they'd probably argue (correctly) that it constitutes parody. (shakes head, murmuring 'tsk, tsk!')
Thanks for the link, Marissa!
One of the great challenges for "traditional" news media in the age of configurability is to retain the benefits of editorial oversight while unlocking the extraordinary communicative power of database-driven information. The problem, of course, is that databases put power into the hands of the user, undermining the myth of perfect control over meaning production that characterized many 20th century media.
The other problem, which is far more pragmatic, is that, if everyone's presenting the same database to end users, there's very little opportunity to create a vector of differentiation between information sources; does it all boil down, like the war between Google and Yahoo, to a question of interface and "value-added" content and services?
Maybe it does. But "interface" means more than just choosing the color and placement of buttons on a dashboard. It also means making an ideological or expositional statement through the juxtaposition of information sources -- the same way a traditional newspaper does by choosing the "most important" stories for the front page, or the way a mash-up producer does by choosing two or more songs that create new meanings together through aesthetic or linguistic friction.
All of which is to say, I think the New York Times has done a really nice, elegant job (in an incredibly short turn-around time) of presenting the contents of Hillary Clinton's long-sought and newly-released White House schedules. Their dedicated micro-site offers static images of each schedule page (redactions and all), searchable by page number, date, and, most importantly, keyword. They have also editorially chosen "selected dates" which they feel may have some broad relevance or are in some way exceptional -- such as the day of her speech on women's rights in Beijing, or the day her husband admitted to his affair with "that woman."
Of course, there are still plenty of things to be done (editorial content could be written for every page or recurring subject; more complex search algorithms could be included, permitting queries such as "how many days of vacation did Ms. Clinton take?"), but considering the accelerated time frame, this is great stuff. The fact that the Times would trust its readers to engage the information on their own terms, with their own agendas, indicates that the company is really prepared to address the needs of its users in the 21st century.
FWIW, this also throws some light on Sulzberger's much-maligned claims last year that he didn't "care" whether the NYT would have a print edition in 5 years.
Recent Comments