The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 27.
IRC16 - Proposed Session - #AFCinema2.0
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-afcinema2.0
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Akriti Rastogi and Ishani Dey. </b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<blockquote>Amour fou is saturated with its own aesthetic, it fills itself to the borders of itself with the trajectories of its own gestures, it runs on angels' clocks, it is not a fit fate for commissars & shopkeepers. Its ego evaporates in the mutability of desire, its communal spirit withers in the selfishness of obsession. (Bey, 1985)</blockquote>
<p>Confronted with consolidating rhizomatic concerns that inevitably crop their heads in any forum on internet discussions, let alone cinema, AF, or Amour fou encapsulates the very essence of free access cinema – AF is “not the result of freedom but rather its precondition” (Bey, 1985), AF is Cinema in web 2.0.</p>
<p>The proposed session will be an interactive conversation exploring the Indian scenario of internet based independent filmmaking. The key concerns mediating this dialogue are the mobilization of the internet as a space of exhibition and distribution and its implications in moving through extra-legal spaces, garnering cultural capital and articulating desires of its audience. The purpose here is to engage with cinema within “the broader industrial, institutional, and market contexts in which film exists” moving away from film scholarship focusing solely on the “meaning of the text” while disregarding the very circumstances in which those texts or discourses are “produced and circulated” (McDonald, 2013: 147).</p>
<p>Drawing from traditional methods in cinema scholarship, we turn to our own research methods in trying to articulate contextual engagements with amorphous forms of medium, media and archive. We explore the research potentials that the internet provides as an immediate archive of the contemporary while providing provocations to engage with the internet as an alternative space for film exhibition, distribution and funding. While Ishani Dey explores the mobilization of internet’s potential as an alternative space for film exhibition tracing connections that link pirate circuits, film festivals and subversive mainstream aesthetic shifts; Akriti Rastogi provides an overview of entrepreneurial space of internet based independent filmmaking and the surge in DIY filmmaking in web 2.0.</p>
<p>The session concludes with mediations over the poetics of technological access. The internet’s prolific open access archive’s potential to foster cinephilia and the mutations in viewing habits that ensue lead to novel cinematic experiences and their implication for the profilmic aesthetic. In continuum our encounters with the mainstream and anonymous figures etches out the narrative of experiencing cinema and filmmaking in web 2.0.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>This session proposes to conceptualize the implications of open access digital media spaces for cinema in India. Reading cinema as a product of market driven industry factors it interrogates the shifting industrial, institutional, and market contexts which contemporary India cinema negotiates and the implications of contingent media, mode and exhibition on the cinematic experience. The primary concern is to form methods to navigate the expansive archive of the internet and mark the potentials for alternate production and distribution practices that lie within. The session proposes to walk through a number of case studies illustrating the dissolution of dichotomies that is brought about by the interventions of digital and new media technologies. Drawing parallels between earlier shifts in cinema studies discourses with the coming in of videotape and satellite television in India in the 80s and the contemporary debates surrounding digital film practices and direct to home transmissions, the session attempts to historicize cinephilia within the milieu of technophilia in India.</p>
<p><strong>Provocations</strong></p>
<p>Informal distribution networks like peer-to-peer distribution and pirate circles come to the foreground in the discussion on the construct of the cinephile. While the space of the auteur-entrepreneur claims the spotlight in discussions surrounding linkages in film exhibition – navigating through pirate circles to film festivals, bootlegging to the big league.</p>
<p>The figure of the anonymous filmmaker stands precariously on the divide of the legal and extra-legal boundary that the internet thrives in traversing, thus emerging as a vast platform for exhibition that is then mobilized by the DIY filmmaker. The growing popularity of the short film format and the shifts in viewing screens are seen as symptomatic of internet’s effect on cinema’s aesthetic.</p>
<p>The essential provocation here is that while cinema affects the modes of archiving on the internet, the internet in turn affects the cinematic form.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>McDonald, P. (2013). "Introduction: In Focus Media Industries Studies." <em>Cinema Journal</em>, 52(3).</p>
<p>Lobato, R. (2012) <em>Shadow Economies of Cinema: Mapping Informal Film Distribution</em>.</p>
<p>Zimmerman, R. D.H. (2009). "Cinephillia, Technophilia and Collaborative Remix Zones." <em>Screen</em>, 135-147.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-afcinema2.0'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-afcinema2.0</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:12:03ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #ArchiveAnarchy (Archives, Accessibility, and Social Media)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-archiveanarchy
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Ranjani M Prasad and Farah Yameen.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>In the last decade, the internet has aided a proliferation of information networks - Google Books, archive.org, Hathi Trust, pad.ma and similar archive based knowledge platforms – and cloud based data storage has become a useful and accessible alternative to file based systems.</p>
<p>The session opens up with questions of accessibility, ownership and hegemonies in an active archive. It takes up three archives that are being built at Ambedkar Univeristy and other similar archives to explore the emerging issues of knowledge sharing on the internet.</p>
<ul>
<li>The Lotika Vardarajan archive is an ethnographic archive putting together an academic’s research on indigenous Maritime and Textile traditions and their indepth documentation.</li>
<li>The Delhi Oralities Archive is an oral history archive of city memories and resident narratives that seeks to be accessible to the city as an open resource.</li>
<li>The Institutional Memory Archive is a living archive continuously reinventing itself according the needs of the university campus that it documents.</li></ul>
<p>The archiving impulses in each case are different as are the dissemination needs of the archive. How do Internet tools like social media, audio and video distribution platforms like Soundcloud and YouTube intervene in the archiving space to enable and catalyze access? Do dissemination strategies provided by Twitter and Facebook affect the use and usability of archives? Does such access threaten questions of ownership and privacy? Who owns a public archive like Delhi Oralities? What hierarchies operate in living archives to decide what is archived and who archives it? What are the limits of such knowledge repositories and the open access movement itself, especially in the light of traditional knowledge structures?</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>The discussion session explores questions of archives outside the academic research space. It discusses the possibility of using non-traditional platforms for data sharing to maximize access, sustainability and co-authorship for living archives.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Basic knowledge about existing social media platforms, open source repository softwares such as DSpace and familiarity with Creative Commons licensing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-archiveanarchy'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-archiveanarchy</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:11:45ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #DisruptingRhetorics
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptingrhetorics
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Marialaura Ghidini.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>In "The Braindead Megaphone" (2007) writer George Saunders discusses the power of 21st century voices of high-tech mass media; the voices with whom one converse mentally all the time and often unaware. Saunders uses the metaphor of "The Megaphone Guy at a party" to describe the effects that such voices have on other people's thoughts, even when they are just passive listeners of what is said. The Megaphone Guy "crowds other voices out" because of "the volume and omnipresence of his narrating voice", and his power does not reside in his intelligence or acuity, but in his "dominance". This guy's rhetoric — read also, the mass media’s rhetoric — becomes central because of its unavoidability", and the web, with its now easy-to-use tools and shiny platforms, along with the seeming global interconnectedness of the Internet have made his dominance more portable and accessible, less unavoidable.</p>
<p>Simultaneously, such easiness and interconnectedness have allowed the reversal to happen, that is the development of strategies aimed at obstructing or diverting the dominant rhetoric. Artistic practices from all over the world have shown us different modes of intervention that disrupt the hegemonic discourses facilitated by the adoption of 'global' platforms of communication, entertainment and commerce. From the duo ubermonger to artists Paolo Cirio and IOCOSE and the labs like F.A.T. Lab, artists have developed strategies to weaken the power and dominance of The Megaphone Guys; they have developed methods of research, analysis and action which effects go beyond the art circuit and being on the internet.</p>
<p>All that said, however, the question of accessibility remains pressing and open to discussion: the bandwidth of common internet access and the way in which the web is entangled with everyday life still differs according to geographical areas. And this factor has often been overlooked in the researches into artistic practices online and their potentials to generate discourses that offer an alternative to the dominant ones. This difference in infrastructure and cultural uses has determined a diversity in artistic interventions aimed at disrupting dominating narratives: India shows a different history and approaches that this session would like to bring to light with the help of the participants.</p>
<p>Both through looking within the art field and outside it, such as in the work of social and community enterprises like the collective BlankNoise, this session aims to look artistic practices as methods of research and intervention that can be used to understand the effects of the Internet and web tools on society and, in turn, to put forward new ways in which web technology can be critically used by many, and non-artists, in their everyday life.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>Led by a curator/researcher, in collaboration with an artist and another curator/researcher, this discussion session will start with a general overview of artistic interventions, i.e. methods, aimed at disrupting the world's views created by mass media. This general overview will include examples of both national and international artists and community-based projects, from artists ubermonger, IOCOSE, Paolo Cirio and labs like F.A.T. Lab outside India, to the work of collectives such as Cybermohalla and BlankNoise, and artist like Archana Hande in India. It will be then followed by a discursive moment during which the participants will be divided in groups, according to specific key words collectively agreed upon, to discuss artists works and non-artistic activities pertaining the subject of the session. What will emerge from the group discussions will be presented to all participants in a short session, and will be followed by an attempt to create a mapping of current methods of intervening and acting
online. Prior to the workshop participants will be given suggested readings and a series of questions that will help them for the breakout groups.</p>
<p>With this structure the session will not be based on one-way communication but it will allow to generate collective research into online behaviours—of platforms, corporations, people and communities of interest—through expanding on the views proposed by the proponents of #DisruptingRhetorics.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Tatiana Bazzichelli, <em>Networked Disruption. Rethinking Oppositions in Art, Hacktivism and the Business of Social Networking</em>. DARC PRESS (Aarhus University), Denmark, 2013 (Excerpts)</p>
<p>George Saunders, <em>The Braindead Megaphone.</em> Riverhead Books, US, 2007</p>
<p>F.A.T. Lab, We Lost, <a href="http://fffff.at/rip/" target="_blank">http://fffff.at/rip/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptingrhetorics'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptingrhetorics</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:09:30ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #InternetMovements
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Becca Savory, Sarah McKeever, and Shaunak Sen.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Since its early days the Internet has been conceived in terms of both movement and landscape - from “cyberspace” to the “Information Superhighway” - and in popular perception is often viewed as a boundless space imagined in terms of limitless possibilities. Indeed, across our research fields, from digital media to performance and social activism, we find that the Internet is frequently perceived as a space of mobilisation: where moving bodies are
remediated within online content; where the movement of images, ideas and bodies can occur freely, with the rapid transmission of the “viral”; and where movement(s) frequently spill over into physical geographies.</p>
<p>Yet increasingly the Internet is also a space of fractured and fragmented movement(s): of blockages and blockades, discontinuities and disappearances. Landscapes become territorialized and movement(s) confined or obstructed. On this basis, we propose an interdisciplinary discussion session around the theme of
"#InternetMovement(s)". We ask how we can conceive of movement(s) in relation to the Internet in India, in terms of both mobility and immobility, fissure and flow.</p>
<p>To encourage fluidity, we propose to structure the session around three "nodes" rather than three separate research papers. Our nodes are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>How can we conceive of movement(s) in relation to Internet research in India?</li>
<li>What are the forms that movement(s) take in our respective fields?</li>
<li>What "stop" or blocks" movement in these cases?</li></ol>
<p>The three co-conveners will each prepare a 5-minute response to each of these nodes, based on our specific areas of research. At each nodal point we will then allow time for wider discussion, enabling inter-disciplinary discussion and flow to underpin the session.</p>
<p>We perceive the session to speak to the first of the conference’s core questions: “How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?”</p>
<p>Each of the three co-convenors is approaching this question in their own research, asking how online media and communications mediate, remediate and transform the fields of film-media, social activism, and performance. We also ask the corollary: what are the limits and impediments to those transformations or mediations? The following section outlines the co-convenors’ approaches in more detail.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent I</strong></p>
<p>The internet increasingly impresses traces on nearly all media technologies everyday. The once stable film body, gets disaggregated into various new forms of loop videos, GIFS, photo-memes, as clips and stills from disparate films get extracted, re-edited, patched and re-moulded into new user-generated media material. Solitary moments and gestures from films (a menacing wink by Jack Nicholson from The Shining, a clap from Charles Kane, a tear from the Tin-Man in The Wizard of Oz) get completely unchained from the original narrative context and used as discrete independent communicative units (Kane’s a popular Birthday wish gesture, while Nicholson’s Is a common linguistic unit signifying playful flirtation.) One of the primary ontological pegs of cinema - movement, today becomes the center of urgent debate around the status of photographs, movement-image forms like GIFs, and traditional moving images as the basic configuring elements of contemporary cinema. Using the film-GIF form as its primary vector this paper opens up the category of ‘movement’ philosophically as well as a constituent form to understand cinema today within the context of India.</p>
<p>As the cinematic object disperses into thousands of fragments hurtling through innumerable new online contexts, questions related to stardom also get radically transformed. I will be investigating a particular site of cinematic re-instansiation - the recent Alok Nath meme phenomenon. Long relegated to the margins of films as the venerable Hindu middle class father, the ‘’Alok Nath is so sanskaari..’’ set off a viral maelstrom that suddenly recast his cinematic body and the memory of a whole host of films (the Suraj Barjatya Hindu joint-family films). The paper focus on questions around movement as a philosophical arena as well as radical new form re-inscribing the cinematic in hitherto unprecedented shapes today.</p>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent II</strong></p>
<p>An examination of social movements with digital components in India begs several questions: What forms do social movements take in the digital world? How do we conceptualise social movements using digital and physical evidence? How does the context of India – as a functioning democracy - allow or restrict digital and physical social movements and define what is an “acceptable” protest movement? Engaging with these questions demands an interdisciplinary perspective, and exploring the interplays between the physical and the digital in regard to social issue protest movements.</p>
<p>Movement in my particular research area is understood in two aspects: the physical mobilisation of individuals to protest against perceived grievances and the movement of information around specific issue areas. The physical movement of bodies in public places is intimately connected to flow of information throughout digital networks, generating entangled and complex interfaces between the digital and the physical and creating new imagined
possibilities of the efficacy of social protest (Castells 2012; Gerbaudo 2012). Examining recent social movements in New Delhi allows us to explore the linkages and disjuncture between the physical and digital, using theoretical developments in social movement theory to anchor the study (Earl, Hunt, and Garrett 2014; Krinsky and Crossley 2014).</p>
<p>Examining the repercussions and strategies of physical/digital mobilisation can lead to a confrontation between the “imagined” possibilities of digital mobilisation and the realities of technological and physical blockages. These blockages can exist at the level of the network – both in digital and physical limitations – but also at the level of digital informational flow and who is allowed to view data? Confronting the “imagined” capabilities with the reality of entrenched power networks contests the notion of the digital as a free superhighway of information into a series of blocks and stoppages, restricting what is possible and feasible. By exploring question of movement(s) in New Delhi, I will explore the disjuncture between the imagined possibilities and the restriction of information – by nature of the algorithms that govern our capabilities and our own social networks – and complicate the triumphal narrative of the affordances of digital mediums on protest movements.</p>
<p><em>References</em></p>
<p>Castells, M. (2012) Networks of Outrage and Networks of Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press</p>
<p>Earl, J., Hunt, J., and Kelly Garrett, R. (2014) ‘Social Movements and the ICT Revolution’ in van der Heijden (Ed.) <em>Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements</em>, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Pgs. 359-383</p>
<p>Gerbaudo, P. (2012) <em>Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism</em>, London: Pluto Press</p>
<p>Krinsky, J. and Crossley, N. (2014) ‘Social Movements and Social Networks: An Introduction’, <em>Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest</em>, Vol. 13, No. 1. Pgs. 1-21</p>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent III</strong></p>
<p>My research centres on the recent history of flash mob performance in India and analyses the transformations that have taken place within the genre: firstly, as an initially American, then “global,” performance form becomes re-situated and adapted within an Indian context; and secondly, as the form has evolved over time in relation to the transitioning of the Internet from a predominantly text-based medium to a predominantly image- and video-based one (see Strangelove 2010).</p>
<p>In the field of flash mob performance, we see moving bodies becoming re-mediated as moving images, and mobilised into the flow of global circuits of online reception. My underlying concern when approaching this research is: who is mobile in these contexts? Who becomes visible through movement, and by extension, who may disappear in these
same moments?</p>
<p>I intend to approach this session by examining what is enacted through the movements of flash mob performance, focusing on the more recent phase of the genre in which flash mobs become mobilised through online video-sharing practices. I argue that they perform mediated representations of “New India” for an online national and international audience, valorising the new “non-places” (Augé 1992) of Indian supermodernity, through the acts of a
mobilised “digerati” (Keniston 2004). If we consider that performance can play a role in the construction of cultural memory (Roach 1996; Taylor 2003), and that the Internet as an archive can become a repository of performances and thus memories(Gehl 2009), I ask if online performance in these contexts may be seen as an aspect of the processes that structure a “politics of forgetting” (Fernandes 2006) in globalising India. Which narratives are rendered visible and which invisible through these performances? Who appears and who disappears? Movement on the Internet thus becomes a political question concerned with comparative mobilities, visibilities, and participation in the narratives of “India” that are constructed for global circulation.</p>
<p><em>References</em></p>
<p>Augé, M., 1992. <em>Non-places : introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity</em>. Translated by J. Howe. 1995. London & New York: Verso.</p>
<p>Fernandes, L., 2006. The politics of forgetting: class politics, state power and the restructuring of urban space in India. In Y. Lee and B.S.A. Yeoh eds., <em>Globalisation and the Politics of Forgetting</em>, London; New York: Routledge.</p>
<p>Gehl, R., 2009. YouTube as archive: Who will curate this digital Wunderkammer? <em>International Journal of Cultural Studies</em>, 12(1), pp.43-60.</p>
<p>Keniston, K., 2004. Introduction: The four digital divides. In K. Keniston & D. Kumar eds., <em>IT experience in India: bridging the digital divide</em>, New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.</p>
<p>Roach, J.R., 1996. <em>Cities of the Dead: Circum-atlantic performance</em>. Chichester and New York: Columbia University Press.</p>
<p>Strangelove, M., 2010. <em>Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people</em>. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.</p>
<p>Taylor, D., 2003. <em>The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas</em>. USA: Duke University Press.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Noys, B. (2004) Gestural Cinema?: Giorgio Agamben on Film. In <em>Film Philosophy</em> Vol. 8 no. 22. Available at: <a href="http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n22noys" target="_blank">http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n22noys</a>.</p>
<p>Couldry, N. (2015) ‘The Myth of ‘Us’: Digital Networks, Political Change and the Production of Collectivity’, <em>Information Communication and Society</em>, Vol. 18, No. 6. Pgs. 608-626 .</p>
<p>Appadurai, A., (2010) How histories make geographies: circulation and context in a global perspective. <em>Transcultural Studies</em>, 1. Availabile at: <a href="http://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129" target="_blank">http://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:04:11ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #DigitalDesires
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Silpa Mukherjee, Ankita Deb, and Rahul Kumar.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>We propose to design the panel as a workshop with three paper presentations followed by an open discussion with the house exploring the key question of media objects‟ (in the form of film/film music/memes/gifs/trolls) changing relations with law; copyright and piracy having attained newer connotations in the age of media convergence. While we deal with the materiality of cinema in the new media moment, the session will open out debates on the mutability of media objects in a networked digital terrain ushered in by fast growing and cost-effective internet culture in urban India.</p>
<p>In terms of methodology the panel deploys media archaeology to trace the mutations that film culture has undergone in the digital age. The coexistence of the obsolete media copyright with its meme and its digitally re-mastered copy on torrent informs the research that the three papers involve. A certain engagement with the logic of informed/fan-cinephilic digital labour that unwittingly maintains and updates the algorithmic database of Web 2.0 services will run through the presentations. Along with archival research and interviews with professionals
involved with online media companies and “users” who are now the "pirate/prosumer-cinephiles" of media objects, we will carry out extensive digital ethnography to map the chimera of digital territory that user traffic based internet culture in India helped produce.</p>
<p>The digital is a space of intervention: a space for the users to intervene and play with the material online. It is a constant form of participation underscoring a potential for democratic authorship. The definitive notion of authorship voices the overarching body of the state through its legal status. Thus copyright as a legal entity produces a discourse of power through this form of authorship. The contemporary medium or rather the multi-media
constellation driven by internet culture in India produces an alternative discourse on authorship, complicating the notion of copyright and piracy at the same time. This charged terrain of (il)legality is also due to the nature of piracy in the digital domain, which does not exist in isolation but have now created bodies or spheres where it has been appropriated as a sub-cultural practice. The figure of the “pirate”/ the “troll”/ the “fan” and the “cinephile” now merges with the technologically enabled body of the user of new media who negotiates with the medium in multiple ways (and morphs it) and thereby touches all kinds of spaces within and outside the webspace. It has changed the physical scope of cinephilia as addressed in the paper "A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar," where the culture of networked sharing evolves from and further complicates physical stations. It has permeated into the body of film music in the paper "Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item numbers and the web", which interrogates the layers of user-based morphs that the text of a dance number in Bollywood undergoes in the culture of web based remixing and hacking. It changes the way protected materials like films circulate in the space designated as YouTube, marked by its ability to reproduce copyright materials without violating the law as the third paper titled "Online Streaming in the Era of Digital Cinephilia" points out; the logic of the obsolete
license of old Hindi films which gains a new viral life on YouTube with its official upload vying with the multiple hacker-user uploads.</p>
<p>Thus the panel intends to explore the dizzying overlaps that produce this internet induced distinct zone of ambiguity that neither the law nor the state or the author can claim ownership over. The very embodiment of the material in the digital is in transition i.e. in a state of being morphedby the blurring of the identities of the multiple bodies at work at each moment. Through the three papers we intend to chart this transitional aesthetic sometimes contained and sometimes flowing out of the body of the media text onto the physical, technological and
extra textual objects as well. The panel seeks to position this new world of media objects that overlap and form an uncontainable entity, seeking newer forms of negotiations with the older existing order. We seek to explore then what happens to the very essence of author(ity)ship when digital enters its domain.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p><strong>A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar</strong></p>
<p>With the changes technology has brought to contemporary life, cinephiles – for whom movies are a way of life, films and how they are experienced have undergone major changes. The classic cinephile, as the term was adopted in the 1960s has undergone a major change in the era of internet piracy. I will look at the way pirated films via torrent downloads are consumed by students in certain pockets in New Delhi especially around Mukherjee Nagar area. These students who come from the upwardly mobile Indian middle class families are engaged inpreparations of competitive exams to land a lucrative government job. Circumstances dictate that these students own a laptop to watch films but not a high speed internet connection. To fuel their cinephilic urge, they are dependent upon soft copy vendors of pirated films. These vendors are like a video library, the repository here being a laptop and a storage drive. These professional film pirates depend upon the p2p file sharing commonly referred as "torrent."
DVD and Blu Rays released by official sources are ripped at a bigger size by certain uploaderswhich are downloaded by another one who rips it to an even smaller size, fit enough to be downloaded by pirates with a slower broadband till it reaches places like Mukherjee Nagar. Using this particular case study, where the world of online film piracy merges with a third world piracy domain, I plan to interrogate the logistics of a new kind of cinephilia and
try and frame this particular form of informal circuit of media production and consumption into a coherent perspective.</p>
<p>Relevant websites: <a href="https://kat.cr">https://kat.cr</a>, <a href="https://yts.la/">https://yts.la/</a>, <a href="https://torrentfreak.com">https://torrentfreak.com</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant software: Handbrake, uTorrent / Deluge / Vuze.</p>
<p>Relevant reading: Treske, Andreas. <em>The Inner Life of Video Spheres: Theory for the YouTube Generation</em>. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, 2013</p>
<p><strong>Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item Numbers and the Web</strong></p>
<p>The coming of new digital technologies has rendered the relationship of media objects’ with law extremely malleable and volatile. It urges us to rethink certain categories we have been working with, viz. piracy and copyright. The specific focus of the paper will be on item numbers’ relationship with changing technology and the law. The proprioceptive body being the central node of enquiry here: the law that affects the body that moves on screen and the body that is moved by the screen is made flexible in the digital age with Web 2.0’s unique design that spawns hackability and remixability. Through the registers of music licensing to YouTube, circulation of content offline as MP3 downloads in cheap mass storage devices, user generated morphed content related to item numbers (in the form of memes, GIFs, trolls, posters, tumblr blogs and listicles) spawned by amateur digital culture and remixing videos of film content the paper traces the gray zone between web based music piracy and its copyright rules. It will interrogate the moment when the entertainment industry has recognized the clear
shift of its spectatorship from the older media to the more digital platforms and appropriates the contingency brought in by the algorithmic anxiety of Web 2.0 and its unique relationship with law and hence censorship regulations to innovate newer means of mass circulation and bypassing censorship.</p>
<p>Relevant content: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2O2dBonBok">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2O2dBonBok</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant user-traffic-oriented platforms: <a href="http://www.memegenerator.com">http://www.memegenerator.com</a>, <a href="http://www.trolldekho.com">http://www.trolldekho.com</a>, <a href="http://www.imgur.com">http://www.imgur.com</a>, <a href="https://www.tumblr.com/">https://www.tumblr.com/</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant curated online media platforms: <a href="http://scoopwhoop.com/">ScoopWhoop</a>, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/india">Buzzfeed India</a>, <a href="http://blog.erosnow.com/">blog.erosnow.com</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Online Streaming in the era of Digital Cinephilia</strong></p>
<p>Digital piracy has allowed for certain democratization of film distribution and consumption through a parallel economy of piracy. The lack of control over these channels of distribution produces a blatant threat to the copyright and intellectual property rights that are quintessential to the mainstream culture of commercial film distribution. This paper will focus on the intersection of these two dichotomous cultures through the experience of
watching old films via online streaming. The resurfacing of old films hosted by big corporations like Shemaroo, Venus and Ultra who began as film rights and video rights owners at one point host their old video content in a user generated space called youtube. The video content is a very specific form here. It is an obsolete entity, defined by its ambiguity with copyright that is able to make a legal transgression in order to circulate.</p>
<p>The circulation of the feature films in a web space that is primarily known for its clip culture also provides an interesting paradigm for the copyright material. The big corporate copyright floats in a culture of pirated experiences where the legal domain becomes a dizzying site of contradictions. Through this paper I will draw parallels between the history of these companies and their work in the field of film circulation and to the creation of a new form of cinephilia and its complicated relationship to the law. I will use a variety of archival sources, legal documents and discourses on online streaming to contextualize my argument.</p>
<p>Relevant websites: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/ShemarooEnt">https://www.youtube.com/user/ShemarooEnt</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/VenusMovies">https://www.youtube.com/user/VenusMovies</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/UltraMovieParlour">https://www.youtube.com/user/UltraMovieParlour</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:03:52ZBlog EntryIIRC: Reflections on IRC16
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16
<b>The first edition of the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) series was held on February 26-28, 2016. It was hosted by the Centre for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and was supported by the CSCS Digitial Innovation Fund. Here we share our reflections on the Conference, albeit rather delayed, and lessons towards the next edition to be held in March 2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<em><strong>Note:</strong> IIRC stands for 'if I remember correctly' in ancient internet acronym culture. Thanks to Sebastian for the inspiration.</em>
<hr />
<p>For several months, we have been trying to organise our thoughts, as well as post-conference documentation efforts, emerging from the Internet Researchers' Conference 2016. We have not been very successful in either till now. And like most unsuccessful ventures, it has been a robust learning experience. We are working on giving the IRC16 Reader a final shape, before it becomes more of an academic legend. We hope to launch the beta version of the Reader in mid-September. Here, let me quickly share my reflections on IRC16, at least what I remember of it.</p>
<h3><strong>A Game of Selections</strong></h3>
<p>The Conference departed from most other academic conferences in two obvious ways: 1) the sessions were not selected by a programme committee but through votes cast by all the teams that proposed a session, and 2) the Conference programme consisted of both panel discussions and workshop sessions, and there was no requirement for the panel discussions to be structured around papers (though some sessions did involve presentation of papers). At the feedback session of the Conference, and also in conversations afterwards, it was pointed out that this manner of session selection (not based on paper abstracts, and through voting by peers) is perhaps “too democratic / too wiki-like,” which undermines the ability to curate the Conference effectively. Several participants also presented the opposite viewpoint – that a more peer-driven selection of sessions better reflects the immediate interests and priorities of the community of internet researchers who are gathering at the Conference. As one participant articulated: “we must have faith in our ignorance.”</p>
<p>We at CIS are still confident about this mode of selection but at the same time we do recognise three key concerns in conducting the selection process:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Anonymity:</strong> The anonymous selection process breaks down since we expect the potential participants of the Conference to share early ideas about their potential sessions, and scout for potential session team members, through the mailing list (and elsewhere) before actually submitting the panel proposal. We still prefer that participants discuss the session before proposing it, so perhaps we will have to live with the incomplete anonymity when it comes to the session selection process. Perhaps we can make the votes non-anonymous too to keep parity – that is, all the proposed sessions would be published with the names of their proposers, and all the teams will publicly indicate which other sessions they are voting for.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Disciplinary capture:</strong> While peer-based voting works very well when it comes to reflecting the interests of the community, it might quite easily break down if there is a concentration of teams coming from a specific disciplinary background. How we approach research objects and questions, and hence how we appreciate how exciting a research object or question is, can be quite intimately shaped by our disciplinary locations. A dominance of a specific discipline among the peer-group (that is among all the teams that have proposed sessions) can potentially lead to a 'capture' of the Conference by research objects and questions of interest to specific disciplines. This is something we have to be more aware of when casting our votes.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Peer-review before peer-votes:</strong> The process followed last year only allowed a session team to vote on the sessions proposed by other teams, but not to review and comment on those proposals. This review process is not only useful to infuse the session proposals with ideas and concerns coming from other disciplinary and methodological locations, but also to support the teams to revisit their articulation and structuring of the session before their peers start to cast votes. This is something we must aspire to do during the selection process for IRC17.</li></ul>
<h3><strong>A Clash of Disciplines</strong></h3>
<p>Continuing from the “disciplinary capture” point above, the presence of researchers and practitioners from various fields and disciplines was, according to me, the most exciting part of the IRC16, and also the part that led to significant frustration. I felt that we were able to gather people from various disciplinary backgrounds – academic and otherwise – but could not provide sufficient space or time for the inter-disciplinary conversations to a take more fuller form. We saw clear disagreements emerging between researchers coming from different disciplinary locations, though most of them did not have the opportunity to be developed into a detailed discussion.</p>
<p>This is quite a high ambition for a conference of this kind; that is given the conference was not focused narrowly on a set of topics. Nonetheless, this remains one of the key objectives of the IRC series, and we need to understand how better to create opportunities for participants to communicate their disciplinary concerns and create inter-disciplinary discussions.</p>
<p>One possible way to create context for more inter-disciplinary conversations is by requesting all the sessions’ teams to include members from different disciplines. Also, we can try to keep more open discussion space (but that means less selected sessions) to provide time for the discussions spilling over from the sessions. Thirdly, we can think of including “inter-disciplinary conversations” as one of the key themes for potential sessions of IRC17.</p>
<p>Further, though we experienced several clashes of disciplines, methods, and approaches, these were all limited to a completely anglophone intellectual environment. We failed substantially, as was pointed out by a participant at the feedback session, to create space at the Conference for Indic language practices and concerns – both for researchers and practitioners working in these languages, and the criticisms of anglophone academic framings and practices coming from such researchers and practitioners. This is something we must address proactively during the future editions of the Conference.</p>
<h3><strong>A Storm of Sessions</strong></h3>
<p>One of the often heard criticisms of the conference was regarding the decision to have parallel sessions. While the decision was taken purely to accommodate as many sessions as possible, this of course imposed an undesirable burden upon the participants to choose between two rather desirable sessions. We as organisers of IRC16 faced the same tough decision of choosing between sessions that should both be part of the Conference agenda, and conveniently decided to let the participants choose (instead of us choosing for them). It is quite likely that we would do this again, or at least would like to do this again – that is, we expect that for IRC17 too we would receive a lot of wonderful sessions and decide against a fully single-track conference.</p>
<p>The question of sessions, however, is not only one of tracks. It is also about formats. In the feedback session, there was a clear recognition of the value of “workshop” sessions – that is sessions that involved <em>all</em> the participants <em>doing</em> something – in a conference like this, which is explicitly interested in the conceptual and technical challenges of digital media research. There was also a demand that we have more workshop sessions in IRC17, as opposed to “discussion” sessions that involved paper presentations. While the original plan was that all the participants will primarily be <em>learning</em> or <em>doing</em> something at a workshop session, and will not be talking, as the discussion sessions were primarily meant for talking, the actual sessions in the Conference differed from each other essentially in terms of whether papers were presented or not.</p>
<p>Thus, it perhaps makes sense, for the IRC17 call for sessions, to not to separate out these session types in terms of workshop/discussion but in terms of paper-driven/non-paper-driven. Maybe this separation itself is avoidable and all that we need to say is that the Conference is fundamentally interested in sessions that drive conversations, both intra- and inter-disciplinary. While presentation of papers can surely drive conversations, they are not necessary at all.</p>
<h3><strong>A Feast for Researchers and Practitioners</strong></h3>
<p>A key objective, if not <em>the</em> key objective, of IRC16 was to build a temporary space for researchers and practitioners studying internet and society in India (though not necessarily from or located in India) to gather and share thoughts. While we felt that the conference has been quite effective in doing that, we have been rather clueless when it comes to sustaining the momentum of interactions that was achieved at the Conference, or documenting the various kinds and threads of conversations taking place there.</p>
<p>The first problem, we may say, is not something that CIS (as the organiser of the conference series) should be concerned with too much, since our aim and responsibility is to make possible this <em>temporary</em> space and not to host <em>all</em> conversations and collaborations coming out of it. In fact, we should <em>not</em> be interested in hosting and/or facilitating all such initiatives. The second problem, however, is a serious one for us. Since the Conference is not organised around pre-written papers, we will have to depend on the efforts by the participants either during, or after (or both) the Conference to produce an <em>output</em> that documents, narrates, and/or reflects on the conversations that took place. Such an approach, thus, is fundamentally based upon the trust that the participants will prepare and share these materials <em>after</em> the Conference. On a lighter note, we also hope that social embarrassment and pressure will also play a role here (but that only works when the majority of the participants are actually sharing).</p>
<p>There are two connected points here:</p>
<ul>
<li>While the majority of the documentation happens either at the Conference or after that, what kind of pre-Conference efforts (by the participants) would be useful in ensuring productive sessions?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Who all contribute to this post-Conference Reader? Should it be restricted to teams/people whose sessions were selected, or all who proposed a session, and/or took part in the Conference?</li></ul>
<p>A recommendation at the feedback session of IRC16 touched upon the first question, while the second question is derived from a critical question posed at the same session. The recommendation was that the teams whose sessions get selected for the Conference should share a more detailed session agenda note before the Conference to better inform the participants about the content and approach of the same. The critical question mentioned earlier was regarding the imagination of the <em>community</em> of researchers and practitioners being gathered at the Conference, and if it is only limited to the people whose sessions got selected. In our minds it is clear that everyone gathering at these conferences, and those who proposed sessions but could not attend, are all part of this imagined community, and thus should also contribute to the post-Conference Reader.</p>
<h3><strong>A Dance with Sustainability</strong></h3>
<p>IRC16 was supported very generously by the Centre for Political Studies at JNU (as part of an ongoing project titled <em>UPE2 Project: Politics on Social Media</em>), the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund, and CIS. The first provided us with the conference venue and accommodation, the second provided financial support towards food and travel expenses (and bit of accommodation too), and the third picked up all the remaining expenses and efforts. While we will keep doing what it takes to organise the next editions of IRC, we are dependent on academic and other institutes that are willing to host the event and accommodate the participants, and on various sources of funding that may be available to cover the miscellaneous expenses.</p>
<p>When we started planning for IRC16, we decided not to conceptualise this as part of an ongoing or future project – that is, the conference series should not itself become a <em>deliverable</em> under a project at CIS. While this gives us intellectual and functional independence, it entails serious financial limitations. We are of course open to the conference series becoming a site for developing or communicating a <em>deliverable</em> under an ongoing project at CIS or any other involved actor (especially the host and funding agencies) but such matters, we feel, are best discussed in a case-to-case basis. The bottom line remains that we need financial and human support to take this conference series forward. This is definitely something to be discussed further at IRC17.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Researchers at WorkInternet Researcher's Conference2016-09-06T09:28:51ZBlog EntryInternet Researchers' Conference 2016 (IRC16) - Selected Sessions
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions
<b>We are proud to announce that the first Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC16), organised around the theme of 'studying internet in India,' will be held on February 26-28, 2016, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi. We are deeply grateful to the Centre for Political Studies (CPS) at JNU for hosting the Conference, and to the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF) for generously supporting it. Here are the details about the session selection process, the selected sessions, the Conference programme (draft), the pre-Conference discussions, accommodation, and travel grants. The Conference will include a book sprint to produce an open handbook on 'methods and tools for internet research.'</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session Selection Process</h2>
<p>We received 23 superb session proposals for the IRC16. All the teams that submitted sessions were invited to vote for their eight favourite session in a double-blind manner - the teams did not know the names of the people who proposed other sessions, and we at CIS did not know which team has voted for which particular set of sessions. After receiving all the votes, we could not help but change the format of the Conference (as planned earlier) to accommodate 15 sessions in total. All Discussion and Workshop sessions of the Conference are double track, except for the three Discussion sessions that received most number of votes.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Selected Sessions</h2>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires"><strong>#DigitalDesires</strong></a>: Received 8.15% votes. Proposed by Silpa Mukherjee, Ankita Deb, and Rahul Kumar.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-followthemedium"><strong>#FollowTheMedium</strong></a>: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Zeenab Aneez and Neha Mujumdar.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-stsdebates"><strong>#STSDebates</strong></a>: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitalliteraciesatthemargins"><strong>#DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins</strong></a>: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Aakash Solanki, Sandeep Mertia, and Rashmi M.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements"><strong>#InternetMovements</strong></a>: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Becca Savory, Sarah McKeever, and Shaunak Sen.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-futurebazaars"><strong>#FutureBazaars</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Maitrayee Deka, Adam Arvidsson, Rohini Lakshané, and Ravi Sundaram.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-minimalcomputing"><strong>#MinimalComputing</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Padmini Ray Murray and Sebastian Lütgert.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-webofgenealogies"><strong>#WebOfGenealogies</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Ishita Tiwary, Sandeep Mertia, and Siddharth Narrain.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-wikishadows"><strong>#WikiShadows</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Tanveer Hasan and Rahmanuddin Shaik.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces"><strong>#LiterarySpaces</strong></a>: Received 5.43% votes. Proposed by P.P. Sneha and Arup Chatterjee.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-archiveanarchy"><strong>#ArchiveAnarchy</strong></a>: Received 4.34% votes. Proposed by Ranjani M Prasad and Farah Yameen.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-afcinema2.0"><strong>#AFCinema2.0</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Akriti Rastogi and Ishani Dey.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet"><strong>#ManyPublicsOfInternet</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Sailen Routray and Khetrimayum Monish.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-politicsonsocialmedia"><strong>#PoliticsOnSocialMedia</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Rinku Lamba and Rajarshi Dasgupta.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-spottingdata"><strong>#SpottingData</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Dibyajyoti Ghosh and Purbasha Auddy.</li></ol>
<p> </p>
<h2>Dates and Venue</h2>
<p>The IRC16 will take place during <strong>February 26-28, 2016</strong>, at the <a href="http://jnu.ac.in/"><strong>Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)</strong></a>, Delhi. We are delighted to announce that the Conference will be hosted by the <a href="http://www.jnu.ac.in/SSS/CPS/"><strong>Centre for Political Studies (CPS)</strong></a> at JNU, and will be generously supported by the <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/cscs-digital-innovation-fund"><strong>CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF)</strong></a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Conference Programme</h2>
<p>Access the draft programme (v.2.1): <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/IRC16/raw/master/IRC16_Programme-v.2.1.pdf">Download</a> (PDF).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Pre-Conference Conversations</h2>
<p>Please join the researchers@cis-india mailing list to take part in the pre-conference conversations: <a href="https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers">https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Accommodation</h2>
<p>CPS and CIS will provide accommodation to all non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions, during the days of the Conference.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Travel Grants</h2>
<p>We will offer 10 travel grants, up to Rs. 10,000 each, for within-India travel. The following non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions have been selected for travel grants: Aakash Solanki, Dibyajyoti Ghosh, Neha Mujumdar, Purbasha Auddy, Rahmanuddin Shaik, Rashmi M, Rohini Lakshané, Sailen Routray, P.P. Sneha, and Zeenab Aneez.</p>
<p>The travel grants are made possible by the <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/cscs-digital-innovation-fund">CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF)</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Researcher's ConferenceFeaturedLearningIRC16Researchers at Work2016-01-18T09:23:06ZBlog Entry