20 digitally-enhanced, cross-platform, multi-media, transmedia storytelling projects

In this Sunday’s Observer, I mention five projects that exemplify the ways the Web is used to tell stories. There are many, many more.

Here are the links to the projects I list i the paper, plus some of the ones that were sent to me via email (aleks.krotoski.freelance@guardian.co.uk) or twitter during the research period.

Read More

Interview: Peter Sunde (The Pirate Bay)

What is the Pirate Bay?

The Pirate Bay was a project developed as part of the “anti anti-piracy group” we started, called Piratbyrån. Pirate Bay blew up because all the other file sharing sites were being shut down because of legal pressure from Hollywood. Most of the other torrent sites were run by 16-year-old guys, and when you’re that age and you get a letter from Hollywood attorneys saying we’re going to sue you for all the money in the world, you shut down your site.

We decided we weren’t going to do that because we had the political ideal. Copyright holders spend millions on lobbyists, but they won’t get results except to scare a few people. Putting legislation in place for scaring people isn’t good for society. We wanted to make a statement and take on the fight.

The Internet is based on the idea that everyone can share whatever they want. If you start having gatekeepers you have a consumer and producer relationship. We didn’t like the idea that corporations would take the Internet and turn it into cable TV.

Do you have a philosophical progenitor that has influenced your attitudes towards file sharing?

Piratbyrån was an art project with hackers, artists and thinkers. Our influence came from Public Enemy and from the Marxist movement, from Public Image Limited and KLF. It was traditional French philosophers rather than the American libertarians from the West Coast who inspired us.

Why do you believe you should be able to share files online?

I grew up with computers. I got my first computer when I was nine, and everything I learned about computers was from copies. I wouldn’t be able to programme if it wasn’t for illegally copying my first programming language compiler. I didn’t have the money; I was a kid and no one spent money on it. It was too expensive for everyone!

How did your attitude to file sharing develop?

I started reading academic papers about file sharing that said it is good for the community; it’s good for the artist. The only people who lose are the record companies and the studios. Copyright is based on the notion that there are certain companies who should be able to profit from culture. It’s not based on the idea anymore that people who create things should be able to benefit, or get money for it.

Copyright is boring, so no one really wants to get to know it. It’s such a big legal field, so the companies who can profit from it have a free arena to dictate terms, and no one can question it to work against it. But the Internet removed the middleman. I don’t understand why that’s a bad thing. I see the situation in the same way as discovering a car that runs on water and the oil companies forbidding water to be used in cars.

What are the alternatives to copyright in the digital age?

Rights management isn’t always bad. Creative Commons makes people respect works in a different way. Today in the copyright regime, you don’t respect works because it’s just a thing that costs a Dollar. With Creative Commons, you put a value on the content in a different way: you say it’s worth something more important than money, like a feeling. I think you should be able to copy whatever you want, but if you make money from it, then you should pay for it.

What should copyright mean in the digital global marketplace?

It should be part of freedom of speech. One of the UN’s Human Rights Articles says any person should freely be able to participate in culture. Copyright is breaking this article.

What should consumers do to challenge the copyright regime?

If you don’t respect the copyright law, then it doesn’t apply to you. If the majority don’t agree to the law it shouldn’t be a law, or we’re not living in a democracy. Either we put laws in place that no one respects, or we make laws that people respect. There’s really no alternative.

How does the Web influence?

It’s very radical when it comes to the low price, and, for the grassroots groups, the huge community you can reach very fast. You can see that with Wikileaks: they’ve not spent any money on anything, but they do good work and people trust them because they’re not a big brand or company. There’s no gatekeeper anymore. You have the power to influence as fast as you connect with the Internet. With Twitter and Facebook you don’t even need to create your own publishing platform. You just have to have the idea.

In Sweden after the recent election, a 17-year-old girl created a Facebook group calling for a demonstration against the racists who were voted into office. 10 hours later, 6,000 people showed up and demonstrated. She’s 17, she’s an immigrant. She has no say in the traditional means, so she uses another democratic power to work against the things that happen to her. (translation)

What’s happened over the past ten years that has given the Web greater power for social change?

The technology has become more accessible. That means you don’t have to be a technologist to be an activist. Reducing the need for technological skills has been the biggest thing.

Where can’t it be used to change attitudes and behaviours?

We have a problem with a class society: people who understand the technology and people who don’t. My father can’t use the Web because he doesn’t know how. In modern countries, you’re putting a lot of pressure on making people use the Internet, but 40% of Swedes can’t do that because they don’t know how to use it. We need to keep making it easier.

Where do you feel the most radical change will be felt?

It’s the people. If we can keep the Internet free, it will be a place for people to influence.

Interview: Jody McIntyre (Life on Wheels)

What is Life on Wheels?

Life on Wheels was born out of feeling of anger and frustration, which I think generally, plays to the birth of every revolutionary movement. Essentially, I was going to college every morning and bus drivers would not let me on the bus because I was in a wheelchair. So in response to these feelings, I began writing the blog, generally once a week detailing my experiences.

Why did you choose to use the digital tools?

If you’re trying to get a message out or raise people’s awareness, the aim is to get it out to the largest amount of people as quickly as possible. I saw that how I could do it was on the Internet. If you’re not given a platform by others, you’ll make your own. If your form of resistance is writing, then you will find any means necessary to get that writing out into the public consciousness, even if you have to write it on a piece of paper and go and pin it up on walls around London. The way I saw it, everyone I knew was going on the Internet. So if you put it in that context, it becomes visible.

What is it about digital tools that make them effective for galvanising people?

I don’t think the Internet is some kind of grand solution that will solve all our problems, but it helps because of its global capacity to reach people across the world. Che Guevera was a big internationalist, Malcolm X talked about the global context. A lot of these revolutionaries talked about necessity of encouraging revolution and resistance in any context around the world. If we’re writing on the Internet, the hope that someone in Kashmir or Palestine or Iraq can read what you’re writing is a good hope. With the Web, people in power can’t edit or co-opt what we’ve said. Every newspaper you read has an agenda, or it wouldn’t be printed. Every paper has a school of thought they want to promote. With the Web, I can publish whatever I want to say. They can’t censor our voices any longer. You can say whatever you like about Julian Assange and Wikileaks, but you can’t change the video or the images that one million people saw in one day of American soldiers eager to kill Iraqi civilians. People see those images and know the truth is in front of their eyes.

What are its shortcomings?

We need to realise that most people in the world don’t have access to the Internet. Whilst recognising its benefits, we also have to recognise the reality of the situation. The Internet is the first step. It’s not the answer. How can we get the information out? After that, the revolution will come when people translate what they’re reading about, the videos they’re seeing, into actions on the street and actions that are direct threat in a physical form. There’s a danger if people get into the mindset that writing things and making videos is enough. This is only the start. The movement we want to build, the revolutionary movement for equality for all people, can only happen through direct action, and direct action on the streets. The Internet can play a role in our political education, raising our political consciousness, but as long as people remember that this is a way to plan the actions, to organise ourselves, to connect people, but not the solution, then we’ll be ok.

How will the Web change the world?

The power lies with people, not with the technology. Who’s running the Internet? It’s not a computer that’s putting the content there: it’s people. Power always lies with the people. Once we unify ourselves as a strong revolutionary political force, and once we put our minds together and harness that power, we can make a real change. I don’t think the Internet will change the world: people will change the world.

What will happen when the people currently in power learn to use the Internet for their own ends?

They’ll try everything, but they’re never gong to defeat the resistance. You can’t kill ideas. You can put people in prison. You can murder our brothers. You can demolish our homes. But you can’t kill the ideas in our minds. People are realising their own power. If we can harness that and translate the theories into action, then we can make a real change and a movement for a real equality.