Video Vortex Reader II: moving images beyond YouTube

186 Video Vortex Reader II Moving Images Beyond YoutubeAsia online187ties of using mainstream television as a distribution mechanism can overlook the potentialof alternative channels currently developing on a local level, such as the burgeoning mediaof community television. 23 Between the ongoing discourses concerning community televisionand video activism, there exists some kind of communication gap. On one side, thecommunity television organizers experience difficulty maintaining consistent programmingdue to a lack of supply of material; on the other, video-makers claim a lack of channels todistribute their works to the public. The creation of online databases of video content couldgreatly facilitate interaction between content producers and those running local televisionstations, particularly if both parties utilized technologies that made it easy to transfer large,high-resolution files, such as FTP and BitTorrent, so those downloaded videos could then bebroadcast. Downloading a high-resolution, one-hour video might take a whole day, but thisis still dramatically faster and cheaper than sending it via post, with the added benefit of asearchable database of content.The economic dimension of offline distribution is also engaged by groups and individualsselling their work in the form of hard copy DVDs or VCDs. The Marshall Plan, an independentDVD label created specifically for Indonesian alternative films, readily took up this method,and has been creating video compilations which it distributes through its own networks andscreening programs since 2008. However, some problems emerge rather quickly with thismodel. In order to be direct and open in the selling of independent videos in DVD format,the group faces daunting regulations. Dimas Jayasrana of The Marshall Plan explains thatin distributing their products to outlet franchises that sell DVDs, ‘The DVD products need tohave a minimum of 1000 copies, meaning they need to be pressed commercially insteadof duplicated on a small scale’. Furthermore, ‘All the products need to have an attached taxribbon issued by the Film Censorship Board’. Given that anti-censorship is a key feature ofan independent video movement, censorship regulations thus become another barrier incirculating alternative video works to the public.Most groups choose to tap into existing commercial distribution networks that simply ignoregovernment regulations, such as those of Minikino, Boemboe Forum, HelloMotion andFourcolourfilms. 24 By developing consignment systems with distro (independent music andclothing shops) or other alternative outlets such as bookstores, they are able to supply smallnumbers of copies according to demand. Given the bureaucratic challenges of legal legitimacy,this model suits the present situation better, however it doesn’t necessarily enablevideo-makers to support themselves financially.Another example of offline distribution is used by VideoBattle in Yogyakarta, which has beendisseminating its video compilations as disc sets since 2004. VideoBattle selects and compilesfive-minute videos from entries of any style in an effort to challenge preconceived ‘genres’.The format used by Video Battle is VCD, due to its accessibility and low productioncost, which means that the videos, branded in collectable sets, can be sold at low prices.23. For example, the emergence since 2002 of community television stations such as Grabag TV(Central Java), Rajawali TV (Bandung), and Bahurekso TV (East Java). See Hermanto, 2009.24. Alex Sihar, ‘Prospek Distribusi Film Alternatif di Indonesia’, Ikonik 1 (2007): 33-42.The video-makers selected are encouraged to duplicate and sell copies of the compilationfor their own profit. While the VCD distribution VideoBattle offers is relatively limited, its openendorsement of duplication has contributed to its recognition not only within Indonesia, butalso by international audiences including those in Australia and Europe.Viewing the structural complexity of mass video distribution in light of their own limited resources,some activists develop distribution models based on personal or institutional relationships.One interesting form this has taken is the manual distribution method used byOffstream’s Lexy J. Rambadetta who, apart from festival and television distribution, oftenuses a barter system rather than monetary exchange for his videos. Many groups also tradetheir own videos for those produced by other activists, generating an underground economythat keeps people up-to-date with trends in video content and style. This form of distributionis supported by a range of video library spaces, such as that maintained by VideoBabesmember Ariani Darmawan at Rumah Buku in Bandung, where the public can consistentlyhave access to recently produced work.While small in scale, these hand-to-hand distribution methods take place frequently, andcontinue to develop as activists prioritize public access to a range of information. Rather thanmaking them obsolete, online video distribution has the potential to enhance these methodsand become part of the infrastructure of such initiatives.Online Distribution: Prospects and BarriersFor many video activists in Indonesia, technical barriers have prevented the prioritization ofonline distribution. The greatest technical problem is limited bandwidth, particularly outsideurban centres. Many audiences trying to view online video are faced with an intermittentstream of images, which is both tiring and boring. For the producer or distributor, uploadingthe video takes a very long time, and often fails altogether. These issues, however, arereflective of the common approach to online distribution. While there are many ways to usethe internet as part of a holistic distribution strategy, the user expectation is built around aYouTube-style experience, in which videos are viewed immediately through a browser.One massive challenge activists face is keeping up with rapid changes in the technologicallandscape. Internet usage in Indonesia has soared in the last decade. Data indicates that thenumber of users has risen from 1.9 million in the year 2000 to 25 million in 2007, assistedby the flourishing warnet (internet cafe) businesses and the deregulation of the 2.4 GHz bandin Indonesia, which lead to the expansion of Wi-Fi access. 25 As of 2009, the number of usersmay well be up to 30 million. Of these, however, only 0.08 per cent have home broadbandaccess, due to its relatively high cost. 26 A home connection may cost between 300-800,000rupiah a month (US$30-US$80), which is more expensive, on average, than in places such25. Imam Prakoso, Conditions of Communication Environment for Freedom of Expression inIndonesia, Combine Resource Institution and Global Partner Associated, UK (unpublishedversion), 2008.26. Marc Einstein, ‘Predictions for Indonesia’s telecommunications market’, The Jakarta Post,07/28/2009. Also available from, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/28/predictionsindonesia039s-telecommunications-market.html.