Benkler, Y. (2000) From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access

In this article, it troubles Benkler that the Internet will become just another form of mass media. But would that be true?

I think not. Throughout the years I’ve had some Internet experience and I witnessed a few changes. One of them, for instance, is that a lot of sites look nicer, more professional, with flashy images, sounds and so on and not all of these sites are commercial ones. There is also see a change with the commercial sites. I never had Spam e-mails until a few years ago, and now when you find a nice site, you have to click your way through the pop-ups to see what the site looks like. Although sites get more and more commercialised, there come other programs that can aid you, for instance the ‘pop-up killer’ that eliminates the pop-up sites.

Another thing that did change are the sites where I can find mp3’s. Although there are a lot of federal boundaries, I have to say that it has never been so easy to download a whole album as nowadays. The same counts for games and other programs. These are just sites, not programs like Kazaa, DC++ and Overnet, who, of course, can provide you too with the latest programs and other parts of information.

In other words, although the Internet gets more and more controlled, people will be able to find ways surrounding the legislations and other federal boundaries. Creativity will be kept and Benkler’s fear of loss of expressive freedom is not sustained. Internet won’t be mass medium in the sense that it would just provide entertainment for a big passive crowd. Internet is much more individualistic and there are almost no limitations in finding what you’d like, so it wouldn’t be like the traditional media regulation, which provide you with choices. You can choose yourself and if there are new boundaries, creativity provides a helping hand.

Leddig, L. (2001) Innovation from the Internet

Leddig writes that television channels channel consumers. Although more and more choices came because more channels came, when you compare it with Napster, like Leddig says: “Napster represents the extreme in this trend. Channels no longer channel consumers.”

Later on in the article, Leddig talks about information that www.amazon.com provides. This information isn’t seen as commercial, but as useful information created by other consumers who bought the same product as you and want you to get acquainted with other commodity they liked too. Isn’t this a form of channelling too?

Commercial companies do not create the information provided on this site. But the information from your fellow consumers does create a taste. When you liked a commodity and you liked a recommended commodity too, you might end up following paths, guidelines others made for you. So you are being channelled without commercial intend. Not only this, but couldn’t commercial acts interfere here as well?

Lets say the sites’ guidelines are not secretly sponsored or anything; they are real and created by real consumers. But couldn’t a company buy it’s own product and so act to interfere on the guidelines? If it is true that people buy what is recommended, can’t a company buy lot of it’s own commodity just to get recognised? In that way you can attach your product to something very popular and parasite on their success. In that way, commercial sites can channel your choices without even knowing it.

Harries, D. (2002) Watching the Internet

Although Harries issues correctly that new innovations will try to bring ‘connectedness’ of Internet, the ‘live-ness’ of film and the ‘realness’ of cinema together, would they become ‘new’ or not? Wouldn’t they just become enhanced types of their former concept and still be separated features?

Although degrees of interactivity do climb, it still wouldn’t be even half way interactive. Now I know, full interactivity cannot be created due to narrative limitations. But while surfing on the Internet and participating in a few features the sites have to offer, whatever the features might be you’d still be sitting in front of you’re computer watching your 15” screen and if you’re lucky, 17” screen. Fact is, Internet sites develop more and more features to attract visitors or clientele, but it would still be you sitting in front of your machine. Now there is a big chance that television will become a larger part of the Internet. You see it now already, missed episodes can be downloaded. But on the other hand, you still want to see it as comfortable as can be. The television is a better provider of relaxation and conforms than the computer. Not necessarily the size of the screen, but the whole setting is different. Televisions usually are in front of a couch and not placed on a desk. I know this is not a perquisite or a rule, it’s just a then way in witch we use the computers or televisions. And this separation is clearly seen and emphasized on computers nowadays; they all come with video outputs so you can watch whatever you like on the television.

With the cinema, important elements are that you go with other people; it’s time you spend together. It’s a place to meet and see people. Not only this, but the size of the screen, that intimidating part, is an important factor of cinema too. Although computers can provide you with the looks of a cinema, it doesn’t replace the real thing, how nice the connectedness might be. So yes, media elements do come together on the Internet but the usages will remain separated.

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M (2002) Cultural Economy

This chapter issues cultural problems in the music industry and states who pulls the strings and controls the music industry. It says that record companies see artists as investments. They only sign artists that fulfil certain prejudgements so the artists can be used to their likings, which is maximum profits for the record companies. Hyping and promoting artists plays a big roll; how can we get the artist on the radio and television as much as possible. Marketing strategies peep around the corner and when you look at the music industry through this perspective you could say that the gentlemen from the music industry are creating the taste for the people and thus play a part in culturalizing. But isn’t that changing, especially due to the big library Internet can be?

I myself never listen to the radio and I only flip through music stations on TV when I don’t want to see the commercials on other channels. Bottomline, the music from the big companies don’t get to me anymore. I now it’s hard to fully ignore it, but I have found my music through Internet and I can see where my favourite artistes are performing just by clicking on www.partyflock.com. I hardly listen to the music that is now in the top of the pops, I only go to certain parties where my favourite music is played.

Another positive affect of getting acquainted with music you like through the World Wide Web is that you can determine what music you look best because the choice is way bigger. This results in my case is that I am buying music again, music you can’t hear on the radio or can’t see on the television.

If I didn’t have Internet I might still be listening to popular music and be a part of their culture, but not anymore thanks to the choice making abilities Internet provides.