This week I tried out a new way of blogging, called sound blogging! I really enjoyed it. I discuss the issues surrounding children's beauty pageants by reading an article than further discussing it. Click on the link below to listen!
Sound Blog
https://soundcloud.com/toddlers-tiaras/childrens-beauty-pageants
Article
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126315&page=1#.Uc-ULJrD_IU
Summative - Piracy
This
week we focused on piracy in the music industry. What surprised me the most is
how serious of an issue this is, I honestly hadn’t thought about it much
before. Perhaps because people do it constantly and in the “privacy” of their own
home (so we don’t see this crime happening) is why I wasn’t as aware of this
issue. Also, because in most cases the product isn’t directly in our hands
(like stealing from a mall) people may not believe the crime is as bad.
Whatever the reason, until reading these articles I didn’t see piracy as such
an offensive crime, but they have changed my mind and it is stealing. The four motivations,
although they make sense, in the end it is still going against the law. I have
watched a pirated movie, and listened to pirated music before, so I am at fault
as well. Just like some of the articles said, people say contradictions (just
like I did) I know it is illegal and I see the reasoning behind the laws, but I
have still participated in these actions (although a lot less than others). The
other thing that surprised me is how most weeks, the topic always dwindles down
to be about money. I guess it’s true that the world revolves around money,
especially when it comes to the new technologies. Every company is searching on
how they can make the most profit and every individual is searching for how to
save a quick dollar. The culture vs. commons articles from last week relate
really well to this week, as people discussed that in the digital industry,
music and film are there to be shared amongst the community, while large corporations
have a different opinion. The laws and regulations are made by a small group of
people that then affect a much larger group of people (I’m finding this to be
true in a lot of aspects of life). When it comes to piracy, I think it will
continue to be a vicious circle, companies will continue to make laws and
enforce them, while people will continue to break these laws and find
entertainment for themselves for less or even free. It is going to remain with
the us against them world of capitalism.
Music Piracy
The
music industry like any other wants to make profit. Money, Money, Money is the
main goal for large corporations, like I had previously talked about in Culture
vs. Commons. A small group of individuals make the decisions regarding
everyone. After reading these articles, I would say the main reason piracy
happens is for just that reason, the inability to afford the content. Even if
people can afford the content, if you could get it for free, wouldn’t you? In my
own experiences, I’m not a huge music person, but if I ever put music on my iPod
or made a CD, it came from other peoples laptops, who downloaded it illegally
through itunes or limewire. The only person I know who buys their itunes music
is my Dad (lol) and I’m pretty sure he just doesn’t know how else to do it.
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) describes digital piracy as ‘‘the illegal act of copying digital goods, software, digital documents, digital audio (including music and voice), and digital video for any reason other than to backup without explicit permission from and compensation to the copyright holder’’. I think this definition explains the rules and laws to protect copyright and prevent piracy. I must say before reading these articles I hadn’t really thought about music piracy as a criminal act, because it is so easily accessible and almost everyone I knew participated in it, it didn’t cross my mind that it is illegal. What I found most interesting about Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) article was the four motivations for engaging in piracy, (1) to share culture=content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime. Many people believe that data is put out there to be shared amongst everyone, also no one wants to purchase something and then find out that they don’t like it or aren’t interested in it, so they sample the music beforehand. As I mentioned above, Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) state that 41 percent of the participants said they can’t afford the content and this is why they “steal” it. Others simply don’t support the recent industry, as they are making the money, not the artists. I found it extremely interesting that people said if they could directly pay the artist they would, instead of having to pay these large corporations. They want to cut out the middleman, and support the music artist, the talent, I don’t think that this would ever work, as these companies pay big bucks to market the material, but nonetheless it is a cool concept to think about.
The internet (as we learn in this class) is becoming a large commons, and a place where everything can be shared for everyone to hear. In some cases it is making life easier, cheaper as information is becoming more easily accessible. Even though this is the case for the internet and its users, I have to agree with McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003) that this won’t cause record companies to go under, although it provides new challenges against piracy laws, it can also benefit them as they can buy and sell and create packages for online consumers. The article talks about using subscriptions to make more money because they are paid in advance and while they encourage heavy users, they also make money off people who only visit once in a while.
As I said before, I don’t really participate at all in music piracy, I’m not the most tech-savvy and didn’t really have the time or interest to download music to “sample” for myself. Therefore the laws against music piracy don’t directly affect me, but that being said from reading these articles I think the companies (Big Five) should make a better attempt at pleasing the consumers. Perhaps focus on the people buying the products rather than just how much money is being made through the process.
References
McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) describes digital piracy as ‘‘the illegal act of copying digital goods, software, digital documents, digital audio (including music and voice), and digital video for any reason other than to backup without explicit permission from and compensation to the copyright holder’’. I think this definition explains the rules and laws to protect copyright and prevent piracy. I must say before reading these articles I hadn’t really thought about music piracy as a criminal act, because it is so easily accessible and almost everyone I knew participated in it, it didn’t cross my mind that it is illegal. What I found most interesting about Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) article was the four motivations for engaging in piracy, (1) to share culture=content, (2) to sample, (3) the inability to afford content and (4) to undermine the current copyright regime. Many people believe that data is put out there to be shared amongst everyone, also no one wants to purchase something and then find out that they don’t like it or aren’t interested in it, so they sample the music beforehand. As I mentioned above, Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013) state that 41 percent of the participants said they can’t afford the content and this is why they “steal” it. Others simply don’t support the recent industry, as they are making the money, not the artists. I found it extremely interesting that people said if they could directly pay the artist they would, instead of having to pay these large corporations. They want to cut out the middleman, and support the music artist, the talent, I don’t think that this would ever work, as these companies pay big bucks to market the material, but nonetheless it is a cool concept to think about.
The internet (as we learn in this class) is becoming a large commons, and a place where everything can be shared for everyone to hear. In some cases it is making life easier, cheaper as information is becoming more easily accessible. Even though this is the case for the internet and its users, I have to agree with McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003) that this won’t cause record companies to go under, although it provides new challenges against piracy laws, it can also benefit them as they can buy and sell and create packages for online consumers. The article talks about using subscriptions to make more money because they are paid in advance and while they encourage heavy users, they also make money off people who only visit once in a while.
As I said before, I don’t really participate at all in music piracy, I’m not the most tech-savvy and didn’t really have the time or interest to download music to “sample” for myself. Therefore the laws against music piracy don’t directly affect me, but that being said from reading these articles I think the companies (Big Five) should make a better attempt at pleasing the consumers. Perhaps focus on the people buying the products rather than just how much money is being made through the process.
References
McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67
Which would you prefer?
Here's a look at a video about the negative aspects of children's beauty pageants. I used Mozilla popcorn to create it!
Take a look and tell me what you think!
http://popcorn.webmadecontent.org/15pq
Take a look and tell me what you think!
http://popcorn.webmadecontent.org/15pq
Summative Module 4
I had written that YouTube was by the people for the people,
which I still agree with. An average Joe can simply create a video and post it
online and receive recognition, but I do also agree with Colin’s argument. He
discusses how the creators of YouTube are in it for the money, as it has become
so popular they can make a profit by attaching advertisements and short commercials.
I liked his comment on how because content is so easily accessible and people
can borrow and steal others work quickly, therefore there is easy money to be
made. Although social media sites publicize the good aspects such as connecting
with friends and sharing funny videos, most of the time it boils down to how
much how much money can be made. The second person to comment (mimmzz) was
really supportive of the points I made in my discussion. She touched upon the argument I made about other
countries not having the same wealth and access to technology as we, or the
United States do. This makes it extremely difficult to spread wealth and
education across nations, as they are behind in technological advancements. I really
enjoyed watching the Everything is a
Remix videos, they were educational along with entertaining. Kirby Ferguson
really opened my eyes to how truly everything including music, movies and
products are a reproduction of someone else’s creations. Now a days you don’t need
“expensive tools, a distributor, even skills” to create a product online. I
have learned that media convergence will continue to grow because as we know,
people now are mutli-tasking at every given second. Smartphones was an example
used by many people, as phones have become somewhere to communicate along with
take pictures and play games. This was taking one person’s idea and adding and
changing it to satisfy consumers, people are always wanting the newest and
latest technology. Therefore media is changing the way people think, the way
people are, as the decision process is in the hands of a few people, but
effects masses of people.
Culture Commons vs. Culture Commerce
As
we have talked about before in this course, I am a consumer when it comes to
online content. Although I participate in social media sites such as Facebook,
twitter and instagram, I wouldn't consider myself a producer. I don't create
educational videos or discuss relevant issues online. Even though I don't
produce, I really enjoy watching what others have produced. Such as youtube
videos, watching television shows online and looking at pictures. I think a
true producer is someone who contributes meaningful information or creates
interesting content online (I am not there yet). What inhibits me from producing
and posting online content is lack of skill. I’m not sure how to make a “cool”
video, and I haven’t had the desire to post my thoughts online. Everything you
post is there for life, so you have to be careful of the content that is being
posted (which relates back to my previous blog about Facebook).
Henry Jenkins (2004) discusses media convergence, how tons of different ideas from different places come together as one. My first thought was smartphones, which he also mentioned. Phones used to be used as purely a way to communicate with one another, now you can play games, access all social media sites, and send pictures and text (Jenkins, 2004). Now people are always multitasking, media is shaping the way people are, it can lead them to do certain things, change their thought process and decisions on products. Jenkins (2004) brings fourth that on one hand media is now easily accessible, cheap and fast paced for the community, but on the other hand it is dominated by small, limited groups of people. Therefore one person or group can change the way everyone thinks. If there information is put out through all different types of media, TV, internet and radio, everyone is hearing this message. That being said, there is no real consistency for media, because we have so many ways to access information now. We can see an overload of different viewpoints at our finger tips. Jenkins (2004) says that we can either have media all focused on one message, through one or a few people or a bunch of different sources, where than the public decides what is important, it is very difficult to find a happy medium between these two.
Teresa Rizzo in YouTube the New Cinema of Attractions explains that this concept is much like it was back in 1906. Kirby Fergusson says that everything is copied from something, and therefore YouTube was somewhat formed on the basis of something else. Movies are a bunch of events that lead to a climax, whereas YouTube is random and acknowledges that people are watching. On YouTube you can post comments and responses to the videos, and they are available all day and night. The whole point of YouTube is to gain attraction (Rizzo). People enjoy the immediacy and intense experiences, it creates visual curiosity by labeling videos as “amazing clip” or “must watch” (Rizzo). YouTube is an example of something that made by people for the people. Consumers, such as myself enjoy watching what producers have made. Being able to comment and share what we want, gives us the feeling that we can freely access and share ideas even though there are copyright laws pushing against us. Convergence, and access to these online materials is uneven within given countries, the wealthier have access to computers and Internet and therefore others are striving to keep up with these technological advancements.
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal.
Henry Jenkins (2004) discusses media convergence, how tons of different ideas from different places come together as one. My first thought was smartphones, which he also mentioned. Phones used to be used as purely a way to communicate with one another, now you can play games, access all social media sites, and send pictures and text (Jenkins, 2004). Now people are always multitasking, media is shaping the way people are, it can lead them to do certain things, change their thought process and decisions on products. Jenkins (2004) brings fourth that on one hand media is now easily accessible, cheap and fast paced for the community, but on the other hand it is dominated by small, limited groups of people. Therefore one person or group can change the way everyone thinks. If there information is put out through all different types of media, TV, internet and radio, everyone is hearing this message. That being said, there is no real consistency for media, because we have so many ways to access information now. We can see an overload of different viewpoints at our finger tips. Jenkins (2004) says that we can either have media all focused on one message, through one or a few people or a bunch of different sources, where than the public decides what is important, it is very difficult to find a happy medium between these two.
Teresa Rizzo in YouTube the New Cinema of Attractions explains that this concept is much like it was back in 1906. Kirby Fergusson says that everything is copied from something, and therefore YouTube was somewhat formed on the basis of something else. Movies are a bunch of events that lead to a climax, whereas YouTube is random and acknowledges that people are watching. On YouTube you can post comments and responses to the videos, and they are available all day and night. The whole point of YouTube is to gain attraction (Rizzo). People enjoy the immediacy and intense experiences, it creates visual curiosity by labeling videos as “amazing clip” or “must watch” (Rizzo). YouTube is an example of something that made by people for the people. Consumers, such as myself enjoy watching what producers have made. Being able to comment and share what we want, gives us the feeling that we can freely access and share ideas even though there are copyright laws pushing against us. Convergence, and access to these online materials is uneven within given countries, the wealthier have access to computers and Internet and therefore others are striving to keep up with these technological advancements.
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Rizzo, T. YouTube: the New Cinema of Attractions SCAN | journal of media arts culture. Vol 5, No. 1, Online journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)