WKU POP 201

Introduction to Popular Culture Studies

Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong Part 1

Posted by emilyjones232 on February 8, 2017

After reading the first half of chapter one: Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong, I was struck by the fact that artists or corporations were upset when consumers would use their content without paying for it.

That reminded me of when singer Taylor Swift had her music removed from Spotify in 2014. She is very protective about her work and wants it to receive the praise and compensation she believes it deserves. Swift wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, writing that she believes free or virtually free music has lost what music is really about: “Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free,…I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.”

This is the same for large corporations, such as Warner Music Group. When YouTube was just started up, the record label did not like users posting their music to videos, violating the copyrights. I remember when I would watch videos back in 2007 or so and the video would say “Sorry for no sound!” Businesses also do not want their product used without their consent or pay.

Artists such as Swift, Radiohead and Beyoncé and large corporations all have either taken all of their music off of streaming sites such as Spotify or only posted portions of their discography. These artists and companies believe that the hard work and passion that they put into their albums should be compensated and not given for free.

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong Part 1”

  1. The fact that some artists are so protective of their music while others aren’t is really interesting to me. Some artists basically just let their music linger around the internet for free while others make it hard to find unless you have their physical album or apps such as Apple Music

  2. laurenivey22 said

    I like this post, as it is very similar to what i wrote about about found interesting in the reading. I think it is very interesting how offended artists get when people do not pay for their music. Most artists are extremely successful and already have millions upon billions of dollars, so its not really going to hurt them. I do however, understand it is their livelihood and how it could be frustrating when people do not pay for their stuff. But some people dont even realize that they are doing it illegally sometimes, and honestly if your music is getting out there, regardless of if its paid for or not, you should be happy.

  3. Sean Hull said

    It’s perfectly reasonable that some people prefer to keep their music away from people like me who aren’t necessarily going to reimburse them for their work, but at the same time it seems that free sharing via youtube opens up the possibility promoting content.

    For example, I clearly am not an ideal music consumer, as the majority of what I listen to is ripped off of borrowed CDs or watched on Youtube, but despite these apparently anti-artist practices, it’s thanks to becoming familiar with a couple bands via Youtube that went out and bought their CDs, something I’d never have done without knowledge that I liked what was on it.

    Still, this is iffy and relies on people not just ripping the songs from Youtube itself, so perhaps on the large scale such sharing really does impact their bottom line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: