Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong 2
Posted by katemilner9 on February 9, 2017
As someone who spent most of middle school primarily consuming YouTube videos, some parts of this posts reading were concepts and debates I already knew a fair amount about, but, like any good analysis, I was forced to reconsider ideas I had formed and stood by years ago.
The debate over licensed music is one that I’ve never understood. At the time, it was explained to me as record companies wanting to be the only source of certain songs they had produced. Things about this didn’t make sense to me at age eleven. First off, have you ever tried listening to a song in the background of YouTube video? Nine out of ten times, there’s something interfering with it, be it the content creator speaking over it or some strange edit to the song out of fear of getting caught using licensed content. If anything, I saw it more as a way to find new music I wouldn’t have been exposed to otherwise. After hearing a song in a YouTube video, I would go and search for it from the license holder for a better quality, no interruptions version of the song. In a way, it just felt like free publicity for the songs, not stealing.
But, as the book acknowledges this as a business move that just made sense for YouTube. It explains how in the grand scheme of things, that’s really all it was: a business decision made with money in mind, and not necessarily content creators one the side. So far, one of the biggest things this class has managed to make me do is debate who media handlers should be catering to: their content creators and their audiences, or whoever can help them strive and continue to prosper as a company. Is it better to have restrictions on what licensed content can be featured in YouTube videos and disadvantaged content creators than no YouTube at all?
WKU POP 201 
vene131 said
I completely agree with the whole not understand why people are mad about song in the background of YouTube videos. You definitely cannot hear them most of the time, and it is totally a cool way to discover new music. And honestly as long as the YouTuber puts a link to the artist in their description that should be looked at as free advertising.
tristendenney14 said
I agree with you and have honestly been confused about this same topic for quite some time myself. Today’s discussion in class did clear it up some as we discussed both sides; however, I believe these companies for the most part are only in it for the money. Though they are somewhat concerned about what audiences think to keep interest in the site, I think most big decisions are made for monetary purposes. Therefore, we must exercise our opinions through media.
jacobkaraglanis said
I’m right there with you Tristen, I did not understand why youtubers were punished because they showed me a cool new song, and added to their content at the same time. But it started to make sense because if the artist is not paid for it, then I guess it really is “stealing.”
cameronbrooks3 said
I agree, the only reason some people may consider it to be stealing is only because even though they may put the artist link and information it’s just the fact that they actually didn’t ask the artist or get confirmation from they saying they could use the song in the background.
amycorysite said
I relate to your confusion and controversy over licensed music. The spread of music through the media is by loads of publicity. Regardless of record labels and contracts, music is an art meant to be shared.