MySpace

Yesterday's G2 contained an article by MySpace 'expert' Peaches Geldof, explaining the well-known symptoms of blog addiction and the consequential dangers.

Funny, because it's true. And, shock horror, she's just as bad as the rest of us!

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2046136,00.html

'When dinosaurs walked the earth'

Page 14 of yesterday's Guardian (30.03.07) Film & Music supplement. Interesting article on the come-back success of US indie rock band Dinosaur Jr. on download.

Many references to MySpace and music blogggers. Also found at:

http://http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,2045703,00.html

'Bebo opens music store'

http://http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2044180,00.html

Taken from the Guardian Media online: Bebo is opening a music download service where bands will be able to sell music.

Bebo has joined with '7Digital' where bands can keep 70% of revenue earned.

Time will tell if this new service will continue the rise in Bebo's customers (they reported a 10% rise from January to February).

'MySpace sues the spam king'

http://http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/03/myspace_sues_the_spam_king.html

... an interesting article on politics and the BBC's mobile TV trial. Scroll down to "Bush quotes bloggers" for a good section on the President's slip over Baghdad bloggers.

'The race to preserve the third space '

I nicked this from the http://http://rssmedia.blogspot.com/ site approved by Mrs Fernandez...

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6496351.stm

An interesting article on Tila Tequila's row with MySpace over recommending a site to buy her music which was not approved by News Corporation (simply because they didn't get a cut!)

GuardianUnlimited: Organ Grinder article

'The death of the music album'

http://http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/03/mapping_conversation.html

Scroll down to 'The death...' for an interesting article tapped from The New York Times on the demise of the traditional album.

Cool.

Music/Internet article: 'The Doors lead way as big names of rock go digital'

New article from The Guardian Media online:

http://http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2043013,00.html

Discusses the decision made by the remaining members of The Doors and Elton John to release their entire back catalogues on to the internet to be available to download.

'Googlezon' video:http://www.robinsloan.com

This enigmatic portrayal of the future of the world's media output had obviously been thought about in great depth and therefore seemed really believable. Incorporating real newspapers and companies such as 'The New York Times', Amazon and Google added a touch of realism to an otherwise far-out prediction. The line between truth and fantasy began to blur with the effective use of existing dates in history (e.g. the date the Internet was invented, and the purchase of Friendster by Microsoft), juxtaposed to the fabricated - or not? - predicted dates for the fall of 'The New York Times' etc.

According to the film, Google and Amazon join forces in the near future to form 'Googlezon', and by 2010 there are no genuine news organisations - there exists only online 'virtual' companies, for example 'The New York Times' requests a paid membership for those who sign up online. The film also predicts the suing of Googlezon by 'The New York Times', a case which is taken all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2011 the jury is found in favour of Googlezon. After this, a filtering system named 'EPIC' is made, creating jobs for some but who offer a tiny cut of the huge revenue the system collects.

With the recent controversy surrounding big past transactions, e.g. the purchase of MySpace, the creation of GoogleEarth, GMail and GoogleNews, it is not hard to imagine these events coming to pass in the next few years, particularly considering how far Google has grown, and how quickly (remember the days when Lycos and Ask ruled the net?)

With our continued reliance on technology and computers to make our decisions and govern our lives, it is also feasible that the news organisations should take the step into being totally virtual. Because the newspaper industry is so much attached to our country's heritage, it is perhaps difficult for us to envisage this, however much of the industry is already based online, and who knows what the future holds? As readers we are beginning to contribute more and more to our daily news, and one could argue that, as the technology we use to do this advances, so will the output to which we contribute.

Emily Bell's 'We're all reporters in the digital democracy'

Bell focuses on the citizens' contribution to modern media and the future possibilities of their contribution to our media. She uses to examples to illustrate the differences between 'then' and now, e.g. in her second paragraph: "For as long as there has been journalism there have been bystanders and eye witnesses. What has changed over the past three years has been the speed, volume and type of response that has been made possible by the internet, broadband delivery and digitised media." (We can compare this to our study of the cult of celebrity changing from the aristocracy's 'elite' to essentially anyone, today.)

Like Naughton, Bell uses terrorist activity to convey how things have changed with her reference to 9/11 and how different the footage would have been today. However, she disagrees with Naughton on the issue of the citizens' rights as witnesses and contributors. I doubt that "we are not far from the point where citizen journalists ask for payment for their best exclusive material", however it is definitely worth thinking about: it would be an admirable stance for the people to demand financial reward for their material. Unfortunately, I believe that the problem lies within the heart of the citizens' original aim for providing big businesses with their footage: people are essentially sociable and want their bit to be seen, particularly on television. It is not as if the advancement of NMTs is going to fall - time has proven that consumers have an insatiable appetite for digital media, meaning we will continue to use are brand new mobile phones, cameras and computers to publish our version of reality. Even if people began to charge for their material, no doubt big media moguls would cotton on and work out a way to filter their money into bigger and bigger technology productions.

Perhaps this is a cynical perspective, but Bell makes a good point in her final paragraph: "Is there a difference then between the professional journalist and the citizen contributor?" We must all ask ourselves this, particularly with the recent fall in popularity of our newspapers. A journalist is paid "for an ability to make judgements on how to convey stories or content in the most effective way", and 'citizen contributors' are simply providing their own expertise. Surely, if citizens begin to charge for material as Bell predicts, would they not simply become journalists by definition?

John Naughton's 'Writers who work for nothing: it's a licence to print money'

Naughton discusses the advancement of new media technologies and its effect on journalism, using topical examples such as the photo taken with a mobile and sent to BBC News Online straight after the February Cumbrian train accident, and the footage used to broadcast the July 7 bombings in London.

I was astounded at the metaphor used to describe the amount of digital information generated last year ("enough to fill a dozen stacks of hardback books stretching from the earth to the sun"). Interestingly, "by 2010 more than 70% of all digital content in the world will have been created by consumers". This prediction clearly marks out where the seat of power lies: with us, the consumers. Naughton gives two points of view: the optimists have a good argument with the fact that NMTs have created a "great release of human creativity" and mediums like the internet have provided the appropriate means.

However, we have to consider the counter-argument: as these phenomenons have effectively handed the power over to us, we must be cautious of exploitation. Nick Carr is spot on: "One of the fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0... is the distribution of production into the hands of the many, and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few." As happens so much in an essentially capitalist society, the providers or workers are dominated by an institution (often governed by one or two people) and are rewarded a fraction of what their work is worth. Although each individual contribution is superfluous, the aggregation of "those contributions on a massive scale - on a web scale", equates to a lucrative business.

Naughton's comment on the MySpace deal is highly appropriate: Murdoch's enterprise epitomises the capitalist system, and his latest purchase is certainly a "shrewd" one. After all, can we seriously discuss the 'democratisation of the media' as a positive outcome if one single man can be in control of so much global media output???

... Traditional TV is very un-interactive, whereas interactive television is marginally more so, though choices are limited.

Linear/non-linear - extension of 'interactivity':

• cinema experience: linear
• DVD: can be non-linear
• Interactive TV: can be non-linear
• Internet: mostly non-linear (e.g. YouTube)

Democratisation - NMTs able us to communicate our opinions and ideas; share creative output (blogging); and create our own TV schedules (Sky+)

However... the growing 'digital divide' should not be forgotten - who is being left behind in this race for digital technology??

Technology - Music and the Internet

Convergence: for example PS2, mobile phones, the internet etc. All play music at a hardware level.

Personalisation: iTunes, CD compilation etc.

Interactivity: digital television with music