This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Montgomery, James. "OnMedia Panel: Monetizing Online Video." Www.paulallen.net. 30 Jan. 2008. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://www.paulallen.net/onmedia-panel-monetizing-online-video/>.  

This video talks about Social Media and the struggle it has been to monetize it. According to the article, ComScore rates YouTube as the second largest search engine next to Google. However, the video states, it does not have a solid monetization model. Based on the video, apparently YouTube users don’t care what’s going on around them - they only want to watch a video. These users approach advertisements much like they do on television, by either flipping to another channel or leaving the room until the ad is finished. The article also talks about Twitter. They throw around the idea “What if Twitter would start charging for their usage?” Since Twitter recently announced that Pro accounts are coming this year, but has yet to disclose what they consist of, this seems like an ever more poignant question to answer. Lastly, the video talks about Facebook. It states that “contextual advertising on Facebook is based on the freely submitted data Facebook users provide” and that Facebook’s model is more accurate than a search engine’s technique of ad targeting.

I found source to be particularly interesting as it approaches social media much in the same way I do. I do not exclude YouTube (and also Hulu.com as well) even if it is an entertainment medium as they have social element to them as well. I also felt that this source was interesting as it discussed current trends like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (the latter being a little old in the fast paced world of the internet monetization). I believe that this source will be a foundation text within my research paper and want to delve deeper into each of the monetization models for each of these businesses. The question the article addresses is a important one for every serious company to consider.

SES NY: Will Monetization Models for Social Media Ever Come? Www.webpronews.com. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://videos.webpronews.com/2009/04/03/ses-ny-will-monetization-models-for-social-media-ever-come/>.

    The Newsweek article focuses on Hulu.com and its “formula” for success. Instead of the long commercial breaks that television audiences have become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break. According to studies done by the website, fewer ads make the ones on the site more memorable, allowing the site to charge higher prices for each ad unit. Hulu.com conducted a customer survey with 18,000 respondents and they said that the site had the right amount of ads given the free price of viewing; 17 percent said there was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a 22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users. Additionally, the article states that users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see.  As they collect more and more data, the site personalizes the ad experience for each individual user.
    I felt that this article is a great source to use within my paper and for my presentation as it focuses on one of the main websites my project is on: Hulu.com. The site is a joint-venture between Fox and NBC that brings TV shows from both channels to the web to view for free with an ad supported monetization system. The site also boasts full length films from many distributors including Universal, Fox and Disney. This is a great article as it shows one ad supported system that “works” online. Although the system makes markedly less money that TV on the set, it’s better than the alternative way individuals would gain this content online: Piracy.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.  

This is a nice article by Wired magazine that talks about the future of Twitter.com and one of the monetization systems that it is going to put in place. In the article it states that the company is preparing to create commercial accounts where corporations and other types of businesses could pay a fee to receive an enhanced version of Twitter. The traditional use of the website is a free service that allows people to send short, text message length updates to their network of friends, or as they are called on the site “Followers”. The Wired article also states that Twitter recently closed a round of venture capital financing “pegged at $35 million by media reports, following two earlier funding rounds totaling $20 million.” Although Twitter initially planned to begin seeking revenue streams in 2010, the article mentions that the company recently decided to accelerate the schedule and find ways to monetize its service this year.
    This article is a very good account of one of the methods that one of the emerging giants of social media is doing to monetize its service and make money for its investors. The commercial or premium account model is one that many other websites use to make money. How successful that particular method will work for a site like Twitter is yet to be seen. However, it should be noted that Twitter is extremely unique as it can do real time searches of a mass of individual’s opinions at any given time. Perhaps companies would shell out the cash to be given analytics of their own to study the chatter on twitter.
    Additionally, I also heard of other pay-to-play programs popping up on Twitter from Microsoft and CBD. ExecTweets and MarchTweetness were two ventures that tested out the waters for Twitter being a paid service. It’s too soon to tell the real success of the programs, but I personally believe that may be useful.

Rueters. "Twitter to Offer Business Accounts, at a Price." Wired News. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/03/reuters_us_twitter>. 

   This article is simply a Wikipedia article that talks about Online advertising as a whole. I wanted to include it in my Annotated Bibliography as it is probably one of the best sources to learn about such a new advertising/marketing phenomenon. As we learned in class, Wikipedia is often more accurate than other encyclopedias because of it is online, editable, and under shared license. Some of the subjects the article touches on are the competitive advantage of online advertising over traditional advertising, purchasing variations, E-mail advertising and Affiliate marketing. The article also talks about two types of advertising Hulu.com and Facebook utilize: Contextual advertising and behavioral targeting.
    I felt that this article was actually very informative and helped to broaden my understanding of the online advertising world. The concepts within it are directly applicable to websites that I will be using for case studies in my research paper. The monetization models of YouTube.com, Hulu.com, and Facebook.com are all talked about in depth with sources there as well for additional information if I am so inclined to do so. Basically this article will serve as the framework to help me better understand the principles of advertising online.

"Online Advertising." Wikipedia. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising>.  

    This article is about how Hulu.com is struggling to find advertisers for its On-Demand video streaming website. The article states that the site is facing many problems, including hesitant advertisers, partners that provide entertainment content but will not negotiate prices, and parent companies concerned that the site might cannibalize their own competing media. The article states that Hulu.com is under pressure from content providers, and it has gone back on its pledge to allow anyone to syndicate its content anywhere on the Web. One analyst stated that the site is struggling to find ads for many of its videos. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he says. "I don't think that anyone can say they are impervious to the macroeconomic environment, but we're still hugely optimistic about our ability to monetize the service." Based on numbers from Hulu.com, the site has only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. The rest of the remaining space is filled with public service announcements.
    I thought this article was another good one I could sue as a counterpoint to the success that Hulu.com has found in recent months. Although the site has millions of viewers daily, advertisers are still hesitant in putting their money into the still emerging market of online advertising. It should be noted that YouTube.com also has problems making money and still does not have an efficient advertising based system to monetize itself sufficiently on. Having small commercials play online is a old-fashioned approach to persuading consumers in this new medium, and Hulu.com will live or die by this fact.

Macmillan, Douglas. "Hulu Attracts Crowds but Not Ads - BusinessWeek." BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090330_571175.htm>.  

    This article was extremely interesting as it outlines the reasons why advertising is not working extremely well on the internet. The first reason the author states is that “People don’t trust ads.” The goes on to state that the internet is at it most basic level a much different vehicle for spreading information than other mediums like television or newspapers. He then goes on to say that “People don’t want ads.”  As individuals watch content, the author remarks “when is the time people get up to get a snack, during their show or the commercials (paraphrased).” Lastly, he states that “People don’t need ads.”  He supports his argument by stating that the way people buy online is different than offline. He states that reviews take much more priority when people decide what they are buying  than advertisements online.
     I love this article as it provides a skeptics opinion on the future of online advertising. It supports my probably hypothesis of my research paper: traditional advertising will never survive online. People go online only to find content, so even the ads need to be tailored to their preferences to be able to keep eyeballs. After reading an article like this, it makes me feel that monetization systems like those utilized by Joss Whedon (Dr. Horrible) and Facebook (behavioral targeting) will be the future of the medium. Individuals need to feel that they are not being forced to buy anything, and instead should come to thier own colclusions online. By allowing consumers to feel this way, companies can better thier brand image as well as thier clout in the online sphere.

 Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." TechCrunch. 22 Mar. 2009. 6 Apr. 2009 <www.techcrunch.com>.

          This article talks about Biz Stone, one of the co-founders of twitter, and his hesitance to monetize the service. Other major Web 2.0 companies such as Facebook and YouTube who came before the relatively new company have struggled to find stable streams of revenue as they rushed into building their audience first and then find their source of income later. However, as the article states, these earlier giants have shown that converting eyeballs into money hasn't been easy. The article mentions that Facebook has yet to start generating meaningful amount of profit, and Google has said it has “yet to find the right business model for monetizing YouTube's considerable traffic.” The article infers that Twitter, despite some plans Mr. Stone has, may find itself in the same position. Stone states "How would they respond to us putting ads on the site?" "Are we going to end up pissing them off?"
            A company called Federated Media thought of an idea that creates websites that pull together tweets about a certain topic or by a select group of people. The company is getting corporations to sponsor the sites and will share the ensuing advertising revenue with Twitter. The first site was ExecTweets by Microsoft, a collection of tweets from executives. The second was MarchTweetness, with tweets about the March Madness basketball tournament. I think that this is the best method for monetization for the company and will focus on this during my essay and presentation. Being able to have focused live-streaming information is a new, meaningful way to gain information and I believe people will pay a modest price to be able to do so comfortably.

Gustin, Sam. "Twitter's Business Model? Well, Ummmm..." Wired News. 4 Sept. 2008. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2008/08/portfolio_0804>.

            The article is an interview between Knowledge@Wharton and Joss Whedon, creator of the “Firefly” series and the web-only musical "Dr. Horrible". Dr. Horrible was released on the web in three parts last July and Whedon's plan was to remove the free online versions and sell all three episodes as video downloads through Apple's iTunes Store after a certain amount of time. A week after the series moved to iTunes, it appeared online on Hulu.com. Later, in December, a DVD version became available on Amazon.com. Dr. Horrible utilized various distribution channels and  serves as, according to the article, “something of a case study for marketing independently produced content.” The mini-series cost $200,000 to make from crew and production costs alone and the actors weren’t even paid at first. However, the endeavor ended up making around more than twice the original cost. Whedon stated that he wants what he has done with "Dr. Horrible" to serve as a model for similar original content.
            I am using this source as one of my main texts in my final paper and my presentation. Just as the article states, I want to use “Dr. Horrible” as a case study in the marketing and monetization of independent content online. I find it very interesting that this particular piece of content was able to double its initial investment. The story of Whedon’s online series, and the methods that he used to distribute the content are interesting in the fact that it actually worked. I will definitely use the information I obtained in this lengthy interview to further enrich my paper as it serves as a great example of independent content monetizing itself successfully. Comparing Whedon's work to other ways to monetize entertainment online will be a focus of my presentation and paper.

"Joss Whedon's Plan to Monetize Internet Content (Watch Out, Hollywood) -." Knowledge@Wharton. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2152>.

      This article is great because it states all of the reasons why Hulu.com is succeeding online where other websites have failed. To sum up the way the website works, in the place of the long commercial breaks that the television audience has become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break on Hulu. According to the article, fewer advertisements make the ones during each show more memorable, which in turn allows the Hulu to charge higher prices for the ad units. In a customer survey commissioned by Hulu, 76 percent of nearly 18,000 respondents said that the site had the right amount of ads given the cost of absolutely free cost of viewing; over 17 percent said there was less ae was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a "22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users." Additionally, Hulu users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see. By doing this the group collects more data about each individual which allows them to personalize the ad experience for you.
      I thought this was a great article because it mentions why Hulu.com is a leader in online television viewing. While the numbers here say that Hulu's ads are more effective because of the method of presentation, I feel that many advertisers are still very skeptical about the emerging online video market. Because of this, I do not see hulu becoming a powerhouse media outlet for another 5 years. This article goes very well with the other article about Hulu.com that I used for bibliography: This one give the positive aspects of the service, while the other one talks about the troubles it has since its inception.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->     This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

        The article is a review of Dracula, also known as Bram Stoker's Dracula, a 1992 horror/romance film produced and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, by Roger Ebert. This film was based on the actual novel Dracula by Bram Stoker and stars Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. In his three-star review of the film Ebert talks about in depth both the plot and the quality of the film. Although it is mostly a positive review, Ebert reflects on the fact that Coppola “seems more concerned with spectacle and set-pieces than with storytelling.” He additionally states that at times the narrative is confusing and has many dead ends. Nevertheless, he says that he enjoyed the movie simply because the way it looked and felt. At the end of the article, he states that cinematographer Michael Ballhaus and Production designers Dante Ferreti and Thomas Sanders had "outdone themselves.'

        The origin of this film is precisely how Universal's Dracula, and many of its other horror films, came to be. For many of the films during the “Universal Horror” years, their inspiration came from gothic novels, legends and stage plays. Mystery plays, where individuals travel to a house only to be spooked and scared by a supernatural (or not) being is another commonly adapted type of media. The concept presented in these films usually evolve from one telling to the next, refining and reshaping the narrative to suit the needs of the culture it resides in. Films like the Bram Stoker's Dracula are supremely important as they help to reinvigorate old ideas and stories. This director used modern cinematic techniques and effects to excite the audience about an old story they believed they knew well. Just like Universal did with Dracula in 1931, Coppola changes his story slightly to appeal to his contemporary audience. This is a commonplace occurrence within the horror genre and it serves as a method to keep it fresh as time goes on.

       This article is actually extremely interesting as it talks about the effects of Universal’s Dracula in the narratives native country of origin, Romania. Although the film was created in 1931, it was not until the collapse of Soviet rule that the film finally made it way to the Transylvanian countryside. Apparently, after this discovery, much of the Romanian economy was transformed as tourist attractions based on the figure sprung up to capitalize (literally) on their country’s infamy. Hotels converted themselves into castle like bed and breakfasts, ordinary coffins became stage props for midnight performances, and ordinary roads became dark and scary paths for haunted hayrides. Additionally, besides a growth in tourism, the commercial exploitation of Dracula and Transylvania received an extra boost through the increase in academic tourism – several  international meetings of scholars specializing in the horror genres began to take place there as well.
    It’s an intriguing idea that a simple novel written Bram Stoker could inspire a film that later spawns a small scale cultural and economic revolution for a little, seemingly ordinary nation. This fact proves that Dracula’s influence reached far past the borders of our own nation and affected cultures around the world. A simple search on Google images with terms like “Dracula Japan” shows that the iconic imagery contained within the 1931 film is still found in popular culture even on the other side of the world. The Universal version of Dracula served as the basis for all future retellings in popular culture. Perhaps it was Bela Lugosi’s eerie voice acting or Jack Pierce’s masterful make-up work, whatever the reason, the 1931 account of Bram Stoker’s Dracula established itself as the most recognizable version of the tale to date and possibly forever.

In February of 1931 New York Times journalist Mordaunt Hall reviewed Director Tod Browning’s film Dracula. Throughout his review the writer raves about the picture; even though his summarization, his excited tone is evident. Although within his short article he seems to be enamored with the fantastical idea behind of the film, he does concede that the acting of some individuals is sub par. He ends with the line “This film can at least boast of being the best of the many mystery films.”
    Although it may appear unassuming at first, this article is actually very telling. Not only does it describe how the critics and the public felt about the film in 1931, it now serves as a forecast for the success that Universal would see later on with its other horror films. The author readily acknowledges that the film is not a high class picture but one for the masses, aimed squarely at those with the imagination and courage to view it. And arguably, it came at no better time. With the great depression in full swing and a general sense of hopelessness abounding, America needed a way to escape. What better way to do it than a Universal Pictures horror movie? After all, not much can scare someone after they face down the idea of not having enough to feed their families day after day. Dracula, as well as Frankenstein, the Wolfman and the Mummy, served as icons of distraction that helped America get though hard times and ignite their imaginations. This service proved invaluable in these troubled times and ultimately resulted in their visible location in modern society.

Directed by James Whale and starring Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster, Universals adaptation of the 1818 Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein was a crucial film in the studios line of horror pictures. Like Dracula, the film was released in 1931 and received critical acclaim from both critics and the public alike. The films narrative follows the now familiar plot of a mad scientist bent on creating a man from assorted dead parts and playing God. The twist occurs when the monster becomes uncontrollable and instead of creating man, Dr. Frankenstein creates a dreadful monster. By the end of the film, the local townspeople decide that the creation is an abomination and ultimately destroy it. The film was lauded because of its superb make-up, special effects and thrilling plot. It later spawned several sequels, prequels and side stories including Bride of Frankenstein and Frankenstein vs. the Wolfman.
    The true testament to the iconic nature of the film can be seen in the visual representations of Frankenstein that pervade the world today. Almost every single representation of the character we see in western society is based on the green skinned, bolted and shambling version presented to us by Universal in the early 1930’s. We see versions of Boris Karloff’s face on cereal boxes, cartoons and, of course, in the masks of Halloween costumes. The longevity of these images that occur in our culture is a genuine indicator of the success of the Universal horror line of films; they have become integrated into our popular consciousness and now represent the traditional fiends and monsters that we draw on for inspiration. Like with Dracula, Universal’s Frankenstein has become the most recognizable version of the monsters narrative, even more so than the original work by Shelley. Because of these reasons, Universal was able to establish itself as the best studio producer of horror films of the 20th century.

Written by Michael Atkinson in 1998, this article was featured in the Village Voice film section. In its paragraphs it describes a number of classic horror films a person could bring his or her family to. Atkinson stated that during the hey-day of horror films during the 1930s and 1940s the films must have supplied thrills and fun for depression era movie goers. He contends that their age now makes them more appealing to young boys and lovers of camp. With titles like Frankenstein vs. the Wolfman, who can blame him? Because of this, Atkinson states, the films are now more humorous than scary. He does however say that Universal Horror had a large influence on popular culture. He states:

    This small handful of films are responsible for more specific cultural touchstones than the era's westerns, musicals, and gangster films combined: Jack Pierce's flat-headed Frankenstein monster makeup and hotwired-Afro Bride design, Lugosi's accent, the hunchbacked lab assistant, the mad scientist, the throbbing electrical hardware of the lab itself, crowds of townspeople with torches, the details of werewolf myth (silver bullets, etc.), the vampire's old-world urbanity, and so on.

    Atkinson’s article for the most part is very agreeable. It’s blatantly obvious that the Universal horror films of the 1930s and 40s have begun to show their age. He eludes to the fact that horror films have evolved since then; this is very true. Films now contain much more gore, special effects, nudity and action. The modern audience has been desensitized to the traditional scares of yesteryear. The horror genre has come a long way since 1931 as the society that creates these narratives alters its own tastes as time marches on. In the 60’s we had the underhanded thrills of Hitchcock, the 80’s brought the blood with the likes of Freddy Krueger, and with the new millennium our society has found itself with the over-the-top style of the Saw series. Yet what these newer films lack is the other point Atkinson contends with within his article. The classic films that he highlights, especially ones like Dracula and Frankenstein, have engrained themselves in our national consciousness and have become a part of our collective identity. While today they may seem cheesy, at their release these films were truly terrifying tales about monsters that go bump in the night.

This chapter of Film History: An International Journal was dubbed Sauerkraut & Sausages with a Little Goulash: Germans in Hollywood, 1927. The chapter dealt with the influx of German filmmakers into Hollywood during the 1920s and early 30s. Additionally, it talked about in detail the union of the styles of German expressionism and Hollywood, and its effects on the national and international film industries. Fleeing an increasingly more fascist Germany, these filmmakers brought with them techniques and skills that Hollywood readily adopted. The author further sustains that these filmmakers had an expressionist style that included a low key lighting design that was previously associated with German high art cinema. In 1930’s Hollywood, this technique was applied mostly to the classic horror films that we know today.
    German expressionism was extremely important in the development of the horror genre. Starting with Nosferatu in 1922, a unique take on Bram Stoker’s Dracula story, horror films used expressionistic techniques to their advantage. Shadows, contrasting lighting, heavy make-up and special effect are all expressionistic techniques that persist in the horror genre even to present day. Films during the 1930s were especially influenced by the style because many of the German immigrants, like Dracula cinematographer Karl Freund, went straight from their motherland to Universal Pictures where they began work on the horror classics we cherish today. German expressionism, while having a relatively short lifespan, greatly influenced film style worldwide and shaped Hollywood horror more so than anything else.

The writer of this article discusses a book called Hollywood Gothic: The Tangled Web of "Dracula" from Novel to Stage to Screen. Within his article he summarizes the book and talks about its more interesting aspects and ideas. According to his details, the text deals with many adaptations of the popular legend, both mainstream and obscure. While the book’s author mentions the 1931 version of Dracula with Bela Lugosi, he seems to mostly focus on another version by George Melford and Carlos Villiaras. This other version of the Bram Stoker narrative was also made by Universal in 1931 and even used the same script and sets. However this edition was filmed in Spanish as it was going to be distributed to Mexico and Spain. The book’s author argues that this version not a mere clone but is vastly superior to the American version in both cinematic style and performances. Within the book the author also recounts the legal battles surrounding F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. While this film was another adaptation of the Dracula legend popularized by Bram Stoker, it was not authorized by the authors and thus illegal. The books author contended that although it was illegitimate in the eyes of the law, this 1922 silent version was still a extremely entertaining and a well done film.
    As the author describes, the story of Dracula is one filled with many appropriations of his image and hundreds of adaptations. He also states that the 1931 Spanish language version of Dracula was one of the best uses of the narrative ever. To this, many would have to agree. However, the reason why this version reigns supreme within the world of cinema is chiefly because of the company that backed its production. Universal brought together the inventive minds of make-up artist Jack Pierce, Director Tod Browning and Cinematographer Karl Freund to create a memorable works whose echoes can still be felt within society today. Although many individuals may be able to create an adaptation of a horror story, few pulled it off as well as Universal Pictures and their collection of ingenious minds.

    This particular entry appeared in the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture and was written by Austin Booth. Within its pages, Mr. Booth describes the monster Dracula, in almost all of his many incarnations, within the realm of popular culture. He of course talks extensively about the 1931 version of the narrative, but also finds time to pay homage to a wide variety of characters such as “Sesame Street's Count, Grandpa Munster, Blackula, Duckula, and Count Chockula.” He then describes the resurgence of interest in monster culture on television during the late 1950s and 1960s. Lastly, his entry focuses on the idea of Dracula as a foil or guide to view popular ideas of psychological and social issues.

    Dracula is interesting as he can represent a metaphor for several issues within our society. Some see him as the fear of homosexuals in bodily form. Others believe him to be representative of medieval aristocracy or the uncaring nature of nobility towards the proletariat. A few individuals even see him as the embodiment of his victims in fiendish form. While his physical forms may be analogous to one another, the ideas behind Dracula are much more amorphous. The count is a fascinating monster as his intentions and metaphors can be appropriated to match many circumstances. His status is ambiguous as both fiend and gentleman, hyper-masculine and feminine, ravenous and deliberate. His conflicting dualities lend him to fit within many roles; because of this filmmakers have adapted his persona to suit different eras and audiences.

This article by Robert Spadoni called “The Uncanny Body of Early Sound Film” describes in detail the early days of sound in film. Although it only talks about Dracula by Tod Browning briefly, the rest of its information is applicable nonetheless. He explains that early sound technologies were crude, and thus elicited different feelings from the audience than it does now. At the time, sound was a new technology that people were not quite used to yet and many horror films, like Dracula, used this to thier advantage. The author describes how Dracula actor Bela Lugosi intones his lines in “the thickly accented and gloriously offbeat manner that has since endeared him to many fans.” The synchronization of the image and his otherworldly accent, the author says, sent shivers down the spines of unsuspecting audience goers.

    This article very much gets one fact absolutely right: Sound was a very important feature of early horror films. As a new characteristic of the medium, in 1931 films with sound brought in audiences by themselves, the technology was still was a bit of a novelty to the public as they were not yet quite used to it. Moreover, sound on film allowed filmmakers to create more involved narratives and further draw in the viewer. In both Dracula and its contemporary works, the balance of silence and sound is used to heighten the thrill the public receives from each scene. Additionally, the uses of ambient noise – the howl of a wolf, the sound of bats leaving a cave, the creak of a door hinge – were used in Dracula to scare the audience. Today these techniques are still used and still offer the same chills and thrills they delivered almost 80 years ago. Perhaps it’s hardwired into our brains but sound is one of the most effective ways to disturb the human mind; Dracula and other Universal horror films knew this and used it.

Nosferatu was an early German horror film made in 1922 by director F.W. Murnau. While the film was one of the first cinematic takes on the Dracula legend, it was not actually approved by the Stoker estate. Because of this, all copies of the film were required to be rounded up and destroyed. However, the film was never fully suppressed because of the enormity of the task – the film had already spread across the globe and too many people did not want to part with it. Although the Stoker estate attempted to stop the spread of the film, it was already too late; the film had already achieved cult classic status as an eerie and otherworldly work. Today the film can be obtained for free legally as it has fallen into public domain.

    Nosferatu was extremely important to the development of both horror films and Dracula based narratives that followed it. Although illegal, as a German expressionist film the picture used several cinematic techniques that influenced Universal’s 1931 version and are still frequently in the genre today. In fact, many of the attributes of the film are now seen as staples of the horror genre. The use of low key lighting, shadows and special effects were all used in the creation of this silent film. When used together these visual effects helped the film establish the villain “Count Orlok” as a terrifying supernatural beast that should be feared. The chiaroscuro lighting that helped hide the monster in the shadows, show approaching danger and contrast images is still widely used in modern horror films.

    In chapter 8 of Lessig’s book, called “Transformers,” Lessig tells the story of Alex Alben and his creation of a retrospective CD-ROM based on the career of Clint Eastwood. He talks about the trouble the development team went through to get permission from every single actor that had appeared in the that they were going to use. This is just a small part of the chapter, but it helps explain why partly there are numerous mashups and remixes out there without permission: It’s just too hard. Lessig tells a story where Alben’s team tracked down all the actors that had appeared, called them, and then paid them $600. Besides being time consuming, the process seems very cost prohibitive, which explains why there are such a large number of copyright infringing works on sites like YouTube and online.

    This is a particularly great article for a number of reasons; however, those reasons will be discussed after a brief discussion of its contents. This piece, by regular contributor Bob Garfield, gives an overview of the purpose of YouTube and what it is, video advertising (in all its forms), and the recent purchase of YouTube by Google, inc.

It talks about, among various other things, the 1.65 billion paid for it in Google stock, the outrageous number of 65,000 (which is the number of videos uploaded everyday onto YouTube), and the reasoning why YouTube has such popular viral videos. The last statement was proved in the article by this quote:

“It’s said that if you put a million monkeys at a million typewriters, eventually you will get the works of William Shakespeare. When you put together a million humans, a million camcorders, and a million computers, what you get is YouTube.”

This article would be superb to cite in a piece on YouTube, like I previously stated, numerous reasons. For starters, the article gives and overview of YouTube for those not formerly acquainted with the site. This is a great article, since it explains to reader how the entire process works. It would also shed some light on the culture of the site and the community that worships it. The article at about halfway through switches gears and begins to talk about the ramifications that YouTube is having in the Advertising industry, the recent decline of mass advertising, and the fall of TV Commercials. This would fit into an essay well because I believe it will certainly add depth to my explanation of the new culture that is arising in our society, the new digital culture, one of Tivo, viral video, and iTunes. All together, this article would be indispensable for any essay on remix culture. It’s a great read, that’s chalk full of good information, quotes, and anecdotes that would definitely spice up any essay about YouTube or other remix sites.

    This a great video that can be used as a counter argument for anyone that say’s online video is completely killing companies marketing and advertising strategies. The article chronicles the story of Chevrolet, and their foray into marketing involving online consumer generated works. Thinking they could profit on the recent online explosion, Chevrolet, in a bold move, asked web users to make their own video advertisements for their bestselling SUV, the Tahoe. While Chevrolet supplied the video, and music, users could mix and match them, and add their own captions. While most of the video’s created touted the superiority of the Tahoe, others became sarcastic narrations on global warming, masculinity, and even war in Iraq. Although it was a success overall in the eyes of Chevrolet, it can be argued that because of the appeal of the attack ad’s over the regular advertisements online on sites like YouTube, the negative commercials lampooning the automobile company were much more widely viewed. But, as I said, one could only argue, and not sustain, that this actually supports the fact that ways to advertise to consumers are being lost. Before this claim is made, an individual must realize certain facts.

    First, the company, Chevrolet, is known for selling large, generally fuel inefficient vehicles, which have angered some more eco-friendly consumers. Second, one must remember that many other companies have succeeded where Chevrolet has failed. For example, Burger King and Converse, both nationally recognized chains, have previously launched online “mashup” campaigns. The difference, however, was simply the type of users responding to the company’s promotion, and the products of the company itself. In contrast to what happened to Chevrolet’s dealings with “mashups”, Converse was actually so successful with their endeavor, that numerous of the submissions were actually brought onto national television and later went on to receive critical acclaim.     

    This is a great article for any individual researching the idea of “mashups” and user generated content being used by corporations. It shows what can go right, what go wrong, and what can flat out backfire when users are involved in advertising of a product.

The main purpose of this article would be to introduce the concept of the “mashup” to the reader. Written as a somewhat filler piece for the March 6^th’s Newsweek, it’s short, sweet, and to the point. The author intends to write to a slightly older audience, and begins his article with this sentence: “Unless you're a geek, obsessed with DJs or under the age of 35, chances are you've never heard the word ‘mashup.’” This shows that the piece is actually perfect for my aforementioned plan of introducing the concept of “mashups” to anyone not acquainted. A great part of this article is that it actually breaks “mashups” into the three categories that it can be created within: Video, music, and “web apps.” Although the third category of “web apps” is great, (and a big, meaningful part of the internet and the Web 2.0 movement) I don’t believe that it would have much use in an essay about more artistic “mashups” and the new electronic remix culture.

    In any case, like previously stated, the article gives great examples of creative “mashups” such as DJ Dangermouse’s "The Grey Album," which took the lyrics from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" and mashed them with the Beatles' "White Album,” a plethora of Brokeback Mountain parodies (which are well within the bounds of fair use), and a “mashup” of Tom Cruise's appearance on "Oprah" where he confessed his love for Katie Holmes, juxtaposed against Oprah’s with her scolding of the author James Frey. As far as articles on internet sensations go, with many examples, and a sufficient definition, this piece is some of the best information an individual can find on the ever changing pop culture craze that is the “mashup.”

            This case was particularly important, and could be considered landmark event in the music industry; because of the decision passed down by the Supreme Court, there was dealt a huge blow to the art of sampling in hip hop and rap music. The case involved  Gilbert O'Sullivan, a singer/songwriter, who was associated with Grand Upright Music, bringing suit against Marcel Hall and Warner Brothers, also known as rapper Biz Markie, who was signed the Warner Brothers Records label. The suit was brought because Hall had, without explicit permission, sampled three words (Alone, again and naturally, in that order) and a portion of the harmony from the song "Alone Again (Naturally)" by O'Sullivan, for use in his third album, I Need A Haircut. The presiding Judge, Kevin Thomas Duffy, ruled against Mr. Hall, and Warner Brothers, stating not only did the artist and label break the seventh commandment, but copyright law as well. In his memorandum, Duffy states:

"it is clear that the defendants knew that they were violating the plaintiff's rights as well as the rights of others. Their only aim was to sell thousands upon thousands of records. This callous disregard for the law and for the rights of others requires not only the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff but also sterner measures."

            This case is supremely important to anyone investigating mashups or remix culture as a whole. This case solely changed the face of the hip hop and rap industries, and affected future decisions about copyright infringement.

This particular section of U.S. Copyright law defines the law regarding internet services that use their servers to host unregulated user data. This section is supremely important since it states: “…A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief…” on account of storage and hosting of infringing copyrighted documents uploaded by users. This means that any site, that hosts data by users is not responsible for said data; a statement that is seemingly at ends with the Grokster decision, which stated file sharing services that host infringing content are illegal.

            Relating this back to YouTube and remix culture, if and/or when a copyright holder informs YouTube of infringing content, such as unapproved mashups, remixes, or flat out illegal copies, the only course of action YouTube has to follow to avoid legal disputes is a removal said files. This is how the numerous file hosting sites out there, like YouTube, Revver, MySpace, Google.Video, BitTorrent, and many others, are still functioning and not completely bankrupt from lawsuits. However, since the acquisition of YouTube by Google and it’s deep, deep pockets, many copyright owners and lawyers have been metaphorically “licking their chops” at the chance to win any case that will topple the viral video giant.

            This section of legislation is important and indispensable for anyone doing research on data hosting websites such as YouTube or the others that were stated in the previous paragraph. 

This is a great piece because it helps many individuals who do not know much about copyright law to become informed, of what is legal, what isn’t, why there’s so much fuss about YouTube, and what they can do to prevent illegal material from popping up on the site. It begins with “Ron” informing the viewer about a recent suit brought against the site, by Robert Tur, a helicopter cameraman who has taken numerous famous video clips, such as the OJ Simpson chase, and the LAPD police beatings. Mr. Tur feels that YouTube is purposely profiting by the infringement of illegal videos because of advertisements. However, our lawyer friend, Ron, states YouTube is not violating the DMCA because there is no way to see if the loads and loads of copyrighted material is drawing in ad revenue, or if the loads and loads non-copyrighted material is. He even presents what’s good for YouTube, and what’s bad for YouTube. He then states that in his lawyer opinion, that he believes Tur will lose.

             In the ten minute video, Ron also mentions many other copyright related subjects, such as Fair use, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Betamax case, Napster, Grokster, and others. This is a great source because it tries to help YouTubers avoid copyright infractions by offering advice, (though not legal advice, as the beginning of the video starts off with “The opinions in this video are the authors alone, and do not constitute legal advice.”) so that they can keep YouTube legal and running. In an essay about remix culture, this piece would serve as a devil’s advocate of sorts, showing that YouTube could possibly still survive without its popular, but illegal videos. In my opinion, however, this is probably not as possible as “Ron” puts it, but it’s a unique view nonetheless.

    This article, by online Newsweek contributor Brad Stone, discusses what YouTube represents in the online community. It begins by offering a point, saying “what if YouTube is the Napster of video?” Stone then refutes it by giving specific examples. He states that YouTube is cooperating with copyright holders much more than expected, and is taking down material quickly and but not very efficiently. To combat this problem, YouTube is apparently working with other companies to create a video reconition program that will be able to identify copyrighted material and remove it.

            As you might already be thinking, this is bad for remix culture that wants a large audience such as the viewers of YouTube. It not only slows the flow of creative and derivative works dramatically, but forces creators, who want to use YouTube as a medium, to use works that are royalty free, in the public domain, or ask for permission for use (which almost is never granted).

            This piece does not only give a good explanation of what YouTube is, and where it has come from, but shed’s light on a possible future for the site. If what Mr. Stone predicts comes to fruition, it would mean a entire medium for copyright infringing works would be gone; whether this is a good, or bad thing for society, is up for interpretation.

    To those not acquainted, the Grokster case was the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to make most p2p file sharing applications illegal. The court reached this decision after it reviewed an appeal of another appeal that went from a dismissal by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2003, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the previous decision was upheld. When relating special court cases to sites online today, an individual may spring to the conclusion that the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case would provide the answer easily. This was the case that prevented VCR manufacturers from having liability and suit brought against them for contributory infringement when users created copies. While the court in the Betamax case famously stated that VCR’s were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses," the decision in the Grokster case stated that even if something has the ability for those noninfringing uses, if no action is taken to prevent infringement of copyright law, it may be guilty of contributory infringement.

            How does this relate to the sites and programs used today? Do the YouTubes and BitTorrents have to fear the wrath of possible copyright infringement? The Answer is no, they do not; but, there is a caveat, they must follow the rules of Section 512 of U.S. Copyright law and remove infringing work. This case undoubtedly very significant when approaching and concerning intellectual property theft and property theft in the digital age.

    Before we get into the specifics of this article, it’s good to observe who wrote the it: Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney with the now almost infamous group: the EFF or Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF is a San Francisco-based nonprofit group who try to protect users, the freedom of expression, creativity and innovation on the internet. While on a less than reputable site than others like Newsweek, Time, or other online journals, this piece is just as, or more so compelling and revealing about the business that is YouTube.

    the article itself is split up into 4 sections, the first called: “Why YouTube?” In this section, Von Lohmann explains that the popularity of YouTube has been greater than it’s competitors, citing mostly its ease of use. The second section is “Copyright Issues,” in this section he champions YouTube for being very willing to help abide by copyright, and states that because of this, it is a attractive business partner for advertising. The third section talks about the “Safe Harbor” of section 512 of U.S. copyright law, and how YouTube benefits from it. The last section is aptly named “Problems Ahead?” Like most writers, Von Lohmann is cautious about the future of YouTube and its ability to stay running. He states that while as of right now, while some advertisers are very willing to use the site, others do not because of certain reasons regarding copyright, and advertisement opportunities and effectiveness.

            All in all, this is the perfect article for any individual interested in the business behind YouTube.com. Von Lohmann articulately describes the opportunities facing YouTube, potential investors, and advertisers with the new medium. With this piece in mind, anyone can accurately state what YouTube means from an economic view.