On Music and The Internet

Throughout the 20th century record labels underwent many changes, trials and tribulations. However, during those same years they exploited artists, practiced greedy business, and limited music in the market by eliminating or absorbing their competition. Now, with the dawn of the digital era and with high speed internet acting as the instrument of piracy, the record companies will be annihilated; from the ashes will be born a new system that embraces technology, justly compensates and creates equal opportunities among artists and that is regulated to make music a public commodity that is open source and an inspires creativity.

In 1877 Thomas Edison, with inspiration from “…work on two other inventions, the telegraph and the telephone”, invented the cylinder phonograph. Little did he know, for his phonograph could only hold several minutes of recording and wasn’t particularly intended for song, that his invention would spawn the multi-billion dollar record industry. Edison’s invention was soon updated to a disc format and from there evolved in capacity, sound quality and durability. Initially there were three major labels: Victor, Edison and Columbia. Soon after the expiration of Edison’s patent on recording technology, new independent labels began releasing recordings; they mostly focused on jazz and blues. The first big challenge that the record companies faced came in the 1920’s, when radio stations began playing records over the airwaves and gave no compensation to the writer or copyright owner. This problem was solved by having Congress and the FCC intercede and create new legislation that regulated the radio stations by forcing them to keep tabs on how many times a song was played and pay the writer and copyright owner accordingly. The next trial that the record company faced was of a completely different sort but was handled in a similar fashion. In the 1940’s, after WWII, the reel to reel was brought over to the United States. This machine was expensive, but it became the first personal tool for music piracy. The machine could be used to record records in an analog format. The recordings had very low quality, were rarely sold second hand, and were contained to teenagers; even so the record companies managed to get the government involved by having the FCC collect a dividend from all blank media. This was the last true victory for the record industry.

Over the extensive lifetime of the record business, the companies have learned many trade secrets and ,like any good capitalist enterprise, they learned how to maximize profit. Normally this would be acceptable; a business doing all it can to make money just seems like common sense. However, this method is unethical when applied to an industry where art, individuality, and culture are affected on a grand scale. The truth is that the record companies control all aspects of the music that most people are aware of. It is widely known throughout the record industry that “All in all, the deal offered to artists by a major label is, you get the glory and we get the money”. The labels have vastly superior business and legal knowledge when cutting deals, and often artists feel pressured to sign these bad deals because of the desperation that come from working in such a competitive field. Once the artist signs, unless they are already extremely well established, they give record labels complete control of their art. During the recording process if “…the record company considers any master recording by the artist to be below its level of acceptability, the record company would typically demand the right to require that the artist rerecord such musical composition until the composition reaches the level that the company considers satisfactory for commercial distribution” and they often use this power to change the song until it conforms to a profitable cookie cutter mold. This standardization of music has become more and more evident as the major labels have merged; now only four major labels remain: Warner, EMI, Sony and Universal. The record industry is now technically an oligopoly because “…[four] record companies currently produce 83% of the recorded music currently sold in the United States.”. Also the song writers usually are not even entitled to the writes of their music because “The record company would typically insist on retaining as its property, free from any claims or action from the artist and the artists heirs…master recordings…as well as all the performances embodies on those recordings.”.

The Net

Below is my expanded segment on Net Neutrality

On Net Neutrality

The opposing argument: The internet must be regulated and in a free market environment. The only way to do this is to give the telecom companies control of the lines that they invested in. People usually only go to a few websites anyways, and most of the internet is filled with garbage and lies. Allow the telecom companies to regulate the internet and turn it into a viable market for all. With their guidance, piracy of all types would be greatly reduced, saving the newspapers, the radio, the music industry and the film industry all in one fell swoop.

Why it is wrong: Starting off let me just say, the net should always be neutral. If I have any say, and I dont, corporations need to keep their greedy hands off of the internet and while there at it they can spend that spare time installing my damn fiber-optic lines. In this blog I will argue for the valiant efforts of net neutrality and DESTROY the arguments created by the tele-com companies.

To argue FOR net neutrality I must first clarify the definition that I will be following whilst addressing the issue. According to Wikipedia, which by the way could not exist without net neutrality, " A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams." What this basically means, is that a neutral network is a complex and unlimited network where more connections increases its efficiency. Right now there is a lot of junk on the internet because anyone can put anything on the internet, but internet filters are becoming continuously better by tracking user traffic. In this way, popular content is filtered in a sense by the general population because through the number of page views, more popular websites will make their way to the top of the Google search list.

Now comes my major argument ..... Ahem

For the past few day I have been contemplating the benefits of net neutrality in comparison to a more controlled form of internet. At first I must admit I was finding more benefits for a more capitalized and controlled internet, but then I had a revelation. The global population is growing at a rate of approximative 77 million per year. If the network providers had the ability to regulate the internet it would evolve in the way illustrated in Diagram A. This would mean that the powerful would only become more powerful, gaining more and more viewers as the population grows. This is bad because as the population become bigger so does the talent pool, so it would become increasingly difficult for talented people to make it into the public sphere. Take for example music. It is inevitable that there will be more and more artists as the world population increases. However, it is much cheaper for the record labels to push a few big names in to the public sphere, and as population increases the number of "stars" can stay the same and just grow a larger fan base.

Diagram A: 1 way broadcast

Right now the internet is in an immature state, but as web 2.0 has shown, it is growing rapidly. When a neutral web becomes mature, however, it will be mind blowing and world changing. With net neutrality the internet is a many to many network as illustrated in Diagram B.

Democralypse Now!

The internet and democracy. The two should seemingly go together well enough, but as can be seen in online forums and youtube comments, the internet does not always reflect rational thinking. Come with me as I travel down the "series of tubes" that is the internet, and attempt to excavate any semblance of democracy.

Anonymity is a plus when it comes to voting, and the internet lends itself to creating a veil of privacy. Many websites successfully implement voting or rating such as youtube and digg, and the anonymity lends itself to improving content. Politicaly, the internet is a powerful tool as it provides a great source for aquiring information and increases the possibility of making an informed decision. Surpisingly enough, microsoft argues this point in this article. Also, the internet is a great tool for politians to connect with their constituents and find out thier opinions on upcoming policies and decisions.

Links XD

myspace.com

Though all of myspace pertains to this discussion, the part which resembles most what the articles where talking about is the number at the top that tells you your extended network. Usually it is quite large.

youtube.com

This is a good example because usually you find new videos based on their relation to videos that you have searched for. Your network of videos basicaly expands based on overlapping groups that have something in common.

twitter

this is social networking based more on common interest. It would be more related to the "cave" world because it is usually people you know.

Great Seduction

"What the web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us"
What Keen is saying is that there is no depth to anything on the internet, no real thought process involved. In his eyes everything is just a gimmick to draw attention for a brief second before something even more flashy catches it. He uses examples such as youtube and myspace to prove his point, and to some extent he is actually correct.

Another example of the same thing in a different medium is reality tv. Normal people have become the content and realistically there is no depth to it. It is hard to gain much from watching someone eat a bug or do something insanely idiotic for cash. Media is becoming shallower everywhere, but that dosent mean there isnt media with depth to be found in every medium.

The show "Wipe out is a perfect example"

The main argument against Keen is that there has always been fragmentation and individuality. I for one would never watch Wipe Out, but I'm sure someone must find it enertaining for it to still be on the air. On the internet there is indivduality to a greater extent but people still tend to cluster in groups around certain content. This leads to the creation of "the internet superstars", because, so far most people actually choose to be a spectator instead of a contributer. Also, just because someone contribues to the internet via a blog, does not mean that they cannot be a spectator on youtube or to someone's music.

Maybe we are becoming more fragmented because of the internet, but at no point will we become individual grains of sand. The same laws of gravity apply to society, in the sense that we will always cluster in groups. There is a depth to be found on the internet, you just have to dig for it.

The Neutral Web

In the first article "The amorality of web 2.0", the author at first seems to have a clear understanding of the possibilities that are offered web 2.0. He compares web 2.0 to the ideals of the New Age era of the 70's. However, he quickly takes a steep turn and denounces the web as not be collective intelligence but instead collective ignorance. Truthfuly, he is the one that is ignorant. He sees the web as some bulletin board where everything that is posted is seen by all. He ignores the fact that, most trash published on the internet is filtered out. This filter technology will only get better in the next few years and eventually we will reach new possibilities with the web. One must not look at the web as a stagnant thing. It is constantly evolving just like all technology, and it will only get faster and smarter.

Carr says "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but this is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids" , when describing wikipedia and using it as an example to prove the ill-worth of web 2.0. However, I dont understand what is wrong with a "hodge-podge" of facts. It is a much quicker way of receiving information because it bipasses the all the fluff and unimportant information. Carr fails to see that the web is introducing a new social policy that rewards efficiency over quality.