I think the internet has decentralized consolidation of media, and it has made it more democratic. Previously, content was controlled heavily by a few media/art/political/government giants….and the Comcasts, Googles, Washington and others continue to fight for their own control over this new system. The power of the information age is that releases an ever growing repository of content, which in many ways, requires editing in some way. That is where the possibility arises of anyone to become a content creator or content editor, and where these sites come into play. Their existence could be justified simply as a public location and storage of personal tastes. But the fact that they can be monetized because of traffic only exacerbates their growing numbers. As we know transition from the information age to the conceptual age, those with the slickest presentation of the endless flow of information and products (Right-brainers, according to writer Daniel Pink), will be the ones to separate themselves.
Many in the music business have claimed that the internet killed the industry. It has without a doubt revolutionized it….but definitely didn’t kill it. Prince sells higher priced concert tickets now more than ever. But when Prince’s frustration over the changes led him to declare “the internet’s completely over”, it ironically led to his comments going viral. One can stick virulently to the idea that your own expression must be scarce(i.e. banning his songs from use on the internet), or you can flood the market with your expression(whatever medium) cheaply and efficiently. Those are the two options.
As an artist myself, I do believe it is important to have protections for your creative properties, and people who do create content should get credit for it. I realize it is difficult to police it yourself….perhaps, it only emphasizes the need to watermark or build into your image its true original source and the copyright warning.
Who are the “right-brainers?” What are your thoughts on Bobby’s statements?