I’ve collected 113 items for the year 1995.

My broad impression is that this is when we start to see more about intellectual property (and piracy, or “pilfering” as I call it). We also see Microsoft pivot to the web. In fact, the Web and the browser wars (Netscape) figure pretty heavily. It’s 1995, after all.

A big key text is Dyson 1995, who repeats much of Ratcliffe’s ideas from 1994. Dyson's is one of the earliest, sustained engagements with “content creators.” The basic argument here is that content has become structured, even standardized. And with the ease of copying, “content” will flow. Dyson’s advice is to give content away for free to garner attention and build (no joke!) authentic relationships.

“The likely best course for content providers is to exploit that situation, to distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships. The provider's vital task is to figure out what to charge for and what to give away - all in the context of what other providers are doing and what customers (will grow to) expect.”

The emphasis for Dyson is on the channels – the containment technologies:

“The question of what happens to intellectual property on the Net may be summed up like this: value shifts from the transformation of bits rather than bits themselves, to services, to the selection of content, to the presence of other people, and to the assurance of authenticity - reliable information about sources of bits and their future flows. In short, intellectual assets and property depreciate while intellectual processes and services appreciate.”

Somewhat related to this is "Multimedia Matters" 1995. This is a column exploring who has power in multimedia. Is it the distributor? The publisher? The channel? No! It’s the content creators.

“As the demand for content grows, much of the value will be captured by the ultimate creators of content - actors, pop stars and writers. This is already so in Hollywood where studios outbid each other for the top stars, paying not just large fees but slices of a film's gross takings. In the film industry, it may be more true to say the star is king. Or perhaps, looking at the power of talent agents such as Mr Michael Ovitz, one should say the agent is king.”

And the article also echoes Dyson 1995:

"The best example of this is the hit computer game Doom, which was given away over the Internet. Though the game was eventually commercialised through normal channels, the creator was then negotiating from a position of strength."

That is: give your content away for free in order to profit. Then you get the power. It’s a proto-influencer argument.

And yet, some content creators, including video game makers, face trouble. Barker 1995 discusses the plight of smaller multimedia companies (in Canada) who find themselves seeking mergers or trying to license IP. They set themselves up as "content creators" to avoid issues with underlying platforms or technologies, like CD-ROM or Windows.

“According to [David] Weiser, entertainment companies are investing in multimedia and software development 'because of their interest in new media in general, not just CD-ROM, which is the current interest. Maybe in three years it will all be online. That's why we've positioned ourselves as a content creator, because if cd-rom disappears tomorrow, it won't really affect our business'" (Barker, 1995).

That article concludes with the ambition of video game makers: actor-less media, where you don't have to pay the talent. It's all virtual.

Regardless of where the power lies, a major issue is the idea that digitized content flows so easily -- see Phelan 1995. We get into more discussions of intellectual property beyond mere licensing. We get to discussions of early digital rights management. We see this with Berstein and van Wie 1995, "Breakthrough" 1995. Those deal with digital rights management – the "digibox", a place to put content and manage access to it.

In Bernstein and van Wie and "Breakthrough" there is the explicit discussion of the container, which I find quite intriguing. We also get that in "Ikonic" 1995 – the idea that one simply "pours" content into the container. We start to see (at least I think) the desire to fulfill these media containers. Similarly, "Chastened Chase" 1995 is about "packagers" of content – not the creators, nor the carriers (e.g., cable companies). So-called “packagers” do not create content, but package it and then offer bundles of content to consumers:

“How is it possible to create such valuable businesses from something as basic as packaging? Part of the answer is that consumers like packaging because it reduces the hassle involved in searching for information and entertainment. This means that, if they can establish critical mass in a particular market, content providers are drawn naturally to them. That can put the middlemen in a strong bargaining position. Packagers also often enjoy economies of scale in operating services such as billing systems.”

This speaks to the contentification of media – it can be packaged, rebranded, sold. Much of the above discussion about licensing (e.g., licensing clips for CD-ROMs) anticipates this.

Packaging echoes the observations in Barker 1995 – we need to merge, license, and package IP in order to insulate ourselves from both the complexities of the underlying technologies and the costs of acting talent.

There's also Bunker 1995, about the digitization of the news (which makes me want to go back to Pablo Boczkowski’s first book). And there's an article where a Dean at Centennial College says we're going to produce "content creators" of the future (Gionnis 1995). That brings in education, which is an area that uses "content creators" relatively early (1957, 1990) – as in "educational content."

But again, we’re going to be talking about the World Wide Web a lot in the 1990s, and an indication of this is the advent of tech conferences featuring the web. “WebINNOVATION” 1995 is the example here.

Barker, Leo Rice. “Strategic Alliances.” Playback, April 24, 1995.

This is an article about consolidation among new media companies. It also discusses licensing deals - e.g., a video game company licenses something from Disney to make a game out of it.

Bernstein, David, and David Van Wie. “Publishing on the Internet Copyright — Launching Content on the Internet.” Paper presented at Fall Internet World 1995 Conference. October 1995. http://archive.org/details/FallInternetWorld1995ConferenceTranscripts.

This is a presentation at a conference, discussing their Digibox system. It's early digital rights management, predating the major effort by IBM.

Bunker, Ted. “Pressing on. (Industry Watch)(Includes Related Article on Digital Broadcast Technology) (Industry Trend or Event).” LAN Magazine, November 1, 1995.

This is a story about the gradual digitization of news production. News is part of the larger "content creators" shifting to digital. The adjective "major" is used to discuss content creators above – this is very broadcast/mass focused. There is some discussion of intellectual property/pilfering, but not much: "Text and images can be lifted, stored, and reused at wholesale cost or even for free, leaving creators with little or nothing to show for their effort." It also discusses the sheer labor of digitizing – it's not just a matter of sending pre-press "content" to Prodigy or the WWW. It's more work to clean up data, use publishing tools, and so on. Reporters have to think in terms of hyperlinks, which is new to them.

Business Wire. “Ikonic and Interactive Digital Solutions to Consumerize Interactive Television; Companies to Deliver Industry’s First Complete Interactive TV Solution.” August 9, 1995. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=bwr0000020011024dr8901jrh&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about a new venture to make software interfaces for interactive TV. Make the content and then “pour”(!) it into our framework: "Content providers are in the business of selling products or information," said Robert May, chairman, CEO and founder of Ikonic. "They do not have the time to develop interfaces and software to make their material interactive. Instead, they want to pour content into a ready-to-go standard software solution backed by a company that has the expertise to guide them in the interactive arena."

Business Wire. “WebINNOVATION, First Summit for Web Site Content Creators and Application Developers, Set for December in San Francisco; Silicon Graphics and Netscape Communications Corp. Named Sponsors of Latest Event from Interactive Marketing Communications.” August 17, 1995. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=bwr0000020011024dr8h01ktp&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is all about content creation for the web. That’s the main message. While it’s only a press release, it would be interesting to see what other reporting there was about this “WebINNOVATION” convention. There is this website. There may be more but it’s hard to search for this title.

Dyson, Esther. “Intellectual Value.” July 1995. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-prop/dyson-wired-7-95.html.

This is one of the earliest real engagements with “content creators.” The basic argument here is that content has become structured, even standardized. And with the ease of copying, “content” will flow. Dyson’s advice is to give content away for free to garner attention and build (no joke!) authentic relationships. “The likely best course for content providers is to exploit that situation, to distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships. The provider's vital task is to figure out what to charge for and what to give away - all in the context of what other providers are doing and what customers (will grow to) expect.”

Financial Times. “Chastened Chase.” August 29, 1995. Financial Times Historical Archive.

This speaks to the contentification of media – it can be packaged, rebranded, sold. Much of the above discussion about licensing (e.g., licensing clips for CD-ROMs) anticipates this.

Financial Times. “Multimedia Mantras.” July 17, 1995. Financial Times Historical Archive.

This is a column exploring who has power in multimedia. Is it the distributor? The publisher? The channel? No! It’s the content creators.

Gionas, Sandra. “Bell Wins Benefactor ‘investment’ Award.” SCARBOROUGH. The Toronto Star, December 14, 1995. ZONE Edition.

This is about Centennial College in Toronto. A dean there talks about training the next generation of content creators. I believe it's the first time an educator refers to the production of "content creators" as a result of college. Bell donated some money to the college, as did Silicon Graphics.

PHELAN, J. GREG. “EASY COPYING BRINGS HARD PROBLEMS.” BUSINESS. The Record, July 3, 1995. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=rec0000020011026dr7300lyh&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about the ease of copying digital data. While many others have talked about intellectual property, this is the first one to talk about piracy (pilfering).

PR Newswire. “BREAKTHROUGH: EPR INTRODUCES FIRST TRUE ELECTRONIC RIGHTS SYSTEM.” October 31, 1995. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=prn0000020011026drav01qw0&cat=a&ep=ASE.

This is about what we’d now call DRM, and it’s the most container-ey article I’ve collected up to this point.