WKU POP 201

Introduction to Popular Culture Studies

Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong Part 2

Posted by toripatterson504 on February 8, 2017

I found this chapter of the book to be very interesting and relatable. As mentioned in the text Web 2.0 seeks to capture “participatory culture”. At first I had to grasp the meaning of participatory culture as it pertains to the media. We live in a generation that is heavenly geared around participatory culture. The book states an interesting case on users and consumers being reimagined as co-creators. Being a “co- creator” really involvers users and consumer and promotes and highly encourages interactive experiences with the companies. This theory made me look at YouTube bloggers as co- creators of the media they share. Consider how many times you repetitively turn to YouTube for DIY, music, and tutorial videos.

I use YouTube for a variety of things but mainly Make-up tutorials. As a Beauty blogger not only do you critique products, but you become beneficial in the advertisement of these products. Being that YouTube is the platform for these videos I’ve always wondered if the bloggers received any revenue for the views or likes of viral videos or would that revenue come from the distributors of the products. With as much attention the bloggers bring to the product you would think that received some sort of compensation. This chapter kind of answers the question of how this type of participatory culture works.

This chapter also visits the hot topic of “stolen content”! I find it hard to differentiate public material and private material. I don’t get how a collaboration of my favorite songs are from different artist (mix-tape) could be mistaken as stolen content. There is no way that mix-tapes are being perceived as a copyright crisis. In my opinion companies take credibility too far. As fans of different varieties of music you should be able to us it when or however you want. This chapter actually shed some light on issues that I didn’t even know were issues.

 

 

Advertisements

One Response to “Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong Part 2”

  1. nathanpowers22 said

    The idea of mixtapes being considered stolen content is definitely still up for debate, as the recent Spinrilla lawsuit [1] shows. I agree, for the most part, that the distribution of mixtapes isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I think to say that there is “no way” that they infringe on copyrights really underestimates their impact. If you can listen to or download only your favorite songs from your favorite artists in a single playlist, are you honestly going to buy their whole album? If a mixtape is streamed, shared, and downloaded hundreds of thousands of times, people will undoubtedly be more aware of the artists/songs involved (assuming they are properly credited). However, only a small fraction of listeners are likely to go beyond their initial interest in one or a handful of catchy songs and buy something that supports the artist and/or their music label (e.g. albums, concert tickets, merchandise). Whether these groups need the money is another debate, but I think these things shouldn’t be overlooked.

    [1] – http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/music-industry-majors-sue-hip-hop-streaming-site-spinrilla-971831

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: