tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37916241.post1273470213347643658..comments2023-09-01T01:29:15.314-06:00Comments on zigzigger: YouTube and Archives, Scarcity and Abudancemznhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12336592183292185884noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37916241.post-76016163200874127442012-08-24T20:10:51.973-06:002012-08-24T20:10:51.973-06:00I enjoyed reading this post Mike, and can totally ...I enjoyed reading this post Mike, and can totally relate to the tension between those two thrills: finding really good stuff on YouTube and uncovering the really good exclusive stuff offline. You're right to point out the hierarchies of value and power that underlie the distinctions between the two. Perhaps you'll find that you actually get the most out of those instances where the material is available in the UCLA archive and on YouTube because you can then start to triangulate these sources-- comparing the version in the institutional archive (with its marketing material, identifying data, award categories, etc) with the one on YouTube (with its comments streaming nostalgia, gripes, memories, taunts, etc.) Those convergences, contradictions, and inconsistencies that you find can be incredibly useful. <br /><br />But the other thing that came to mind as I thought about these hierarchies of value and your remarks characterizing the institutional archive as potentially elitist while framing You Tube as more "democratic" is that there are also ways in which these qualities might be flipped. The curators and archivists of YouTube may represent broader constituencies, but there are other power relations at play there that squash some contributions while elevating others, and which frame participation, storage, and distribution in particular ways that do not necessarily serve public interests (which is the explicit mission of institutional archives). I'm thinking about Christian Sandvig's work on YouTube's recommendation algorithms and Tarleton Gillespie's article about the politics of platforms. In very different ways, the politics of visibility and access is at work in both types of archives. <br /><br />Finally, the issue about rights and access is absolutely crucial and the advertising dilemma is particularly annoying. I was trying to get permission to have screenshots of the Zima website from 1995 printed in a chapter I wrote about web historiography. Zima is no longer around. The website is no longer around. The agency that made the website is not around. The client, Coors, was bought by Miller about 5 years ago. I tried calling, emailing, and writing to the MillerCoors legal team to get permission. Nothing. I'd guess that nobody wants to (or feels empowered to) go out on a limb to grant permission for something in which the ownership rights seem so unclear. In the end I just claimed Fair Use (I actually sent a certified letter telling them I was claiming Fair Use as a way to appease the publishers-- I hope that works.) But it points to a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed (or else this will be yet <b>another</b> nail in the coffin of this country!)megan ankersonnoreply@blogger.com