User:Tom Marcing/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Tom Marcing (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Tom Marcing (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Mashups allow users to appropriate cultural material and re-shape it into original products.<ref>Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 76-83</ref> Thus, in regards to Sousa's initial fear of a loss of a democratic form of culture, mashup culture can be said to empower the consumer. The latter is no longer passive; empowered by digital technology, they become themselves a producer, an actor in cultural life. The line between who produces contents and who consumes it is blurred.<ref name=Jenkins2013 /> In addition, the creators of mashup songs form [[online community|communities]] in which exchange of knowledge and source files is common place. Such forms of online sharing have been argued to create bonds between users and encourage collaboration, sometimes in situations in which obstacles such as ideological divides or indivisibility of resources might otherwise be a threat to fruitful collaboration.<ref>Hemetsberger, A. (2012). ‘Let the Source be with you!’ – Practices of Sharing in Free and Open-Source Communities. In Sützl, W., F. Stadler, R. Maier, & Hug, T. (eds.). Media, Knowledge and Education: Cultures and Ethics of Sharing. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 117-128</ref> |
Mashups allow users to appropriate cultural material and re-shape it into original products.<ref>Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 76-83</ref> Thus, in regards to Sousa's initial fear of a loss of a democratic form of culture, mashup culture can be said to empower the consumer. The latter is no longer passive; empowered by digital technology, they become themselves a producer, an actor in cultural life. The line between who produces contents and who consumes it is blurred.<ref name=Jenkins2013 /> In addition, the creators of mashup songs form [[online community|communities]] in which exchange of knowledge and source files is common place. Such forms of online sharing have been argued to create bonds between users and encourage collaboration, sometimes in situations in which obstacles such as ideological divides or indivisibility of resources might otherwise be a threat to fruitful collaboration.<ref>Hemetsberger, A. (2012). ‘Let the Source be with you!’ – Practices of Sharing in Free and Open-Source Communities. In Sützl, W., F. Stadler, R. Maier, & Hug, T. (eds.). Media, Knowledge and Education: Cultures and Ethics of Sharing. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 117-128</ref> |
||
The mashup culture raises issues related to intellectual property, as the material used by mashup artists is, by definition, not their own, and often protected by [[copyright]]. The logic of copyright has been said to go against that of the 'Read/Write culture' previously mentioned in a favor of a 'Read/Only culture', in which cultural material is the exclusive propriety of its original producers.<ref> Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, p.97</ref> For mashup artists, it often means that their creations can be taken down from [[streaming]] services at the request of copyright holders; it also allows copyright holders to sue mashup artists who did not pay any royalty fee. In effect, this threatens the potential of mashup culture to empower consumers, as royalty fee represents a cost for mashup artists which is often not compensated,<ref>Menell, P. (2015). 'Adapting Copyright for the Mashup Generation'. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 11 March 2015, p.441 </ref> as they often do not derive economic profit from their work. |
|||
== Literature == |
== Literature == |
||
Revision as of 16:47, 3 December 2016
Note: this text is intended to be a continuation of the 'Do-it-yourself Culture' subsection of the article about Mashup (culture). It is intended to appear right after the Serazio quote.
The do-it-yourself aspect of mashup culture is at the center of an ongoing discussion in the field of media studies. Most notably, it is relevant when discussing what media scholar Henry Jenkins calls participatory culture.[1] This view of culture is one where the distinction between consumer and producer is blurred. That mashup culture enables a form of participatory culture may be a solution to fears formulated notably by John Philip Sousa at the beginning of the 20th century. In his fight for artists to perceive royalty fees when their music was reproduced on the newly introduced vinyls and on the radio, he claimed that the ease of access to recorded music may mean the end of amateur practice of music.[2] As consumers would have increasingly easy access to recorded music, Sousa explained, they would feel less compelled to make music for and by themselves. In contemporary literature, this is referred to as a change from a 'Read/Write culture' to a 'Read/Only culture'.[2]
Mashups allow users to appropriate cultural material and re-shape it into original products.[3] Thus, in regards to Sousa's initial fear of a loss of a democratic form of culture, mashup culture can be said to empower the consumer. The latter is no longer passive; empowered by digital technology, they become themselves a producer, an actor in cultural life. The line between who produces contents and who consumes it is blurred.[1] In addition, the creators of mashup songs form communities in which exchange of knowledge and source files is common place. Such forms of online sharing have been argued to create bonds between users and encourage collaboration, sometimes in situations in which obstacles such as ideological divides or indivisibility of resources might otherwise be a threat to fruitful collaboration.[4]
The mashup culture raises issues related to intellectual property, as the material used by mashup artists is, by definition, not their own, and often protected by copyright. The logic of copyright has been said to go against that of the 'Read/Write culture' previously mentioned in a favor of a 'Read/Only culture', in which cultural material is the exclusive propriety of its original producers.[5] For mashup artists, it often means that their creations can be taken down from streaming services at the request of copyright holders; it also allows copyright holders to sue mashup artists who did not pay any royalty fee. In effect, this threatens the potential of mashup culture to empower consumers, as royalty fee represents a cost for mashup artists which is often not compensated,[6] as they often do not derive economic profit from their work.
Literature
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury
References
- ^ a b Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable Media. Creating Value and Meaning in Networked Culture. New York & London: New York University Press, pp. 1-46
- ^ a b Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 23-31
- ^ Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 76-83
- ^ Hemetsberger, A. (2012). ‘Let the Source be with you!’ – Practices of Sharing in Free and Open-Source Communities. In Sützl, W., F. Stadler, R. Maier, & Hug, T. (eds.). Media, Knowledge and Education: Cultures and Ethics of Sharing. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 117-128
- ^ Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury, p.97
- ^ Menell, P. (2015). 'Adapting Copyright for the Mashup Generation'. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 11 March 2015, p.441