Topic 3 Week 4 - Music Sharing Online

'Hard times hit the music industry with the birth of Napster in 1999 – a technology that allowed people to easily copy and distribute MP3 files, leading to accusations of music copyright violations. A generation of music consumers became used to downloading songs free. When the US Supreme Court shut down Napster in 2001, other sites popped up in its place. Since then, music CD sales have precipitously declined, dropping 20 percent in 2008 compared with 2007'. This may be a downside to music sharing online but this isn't to say that people aren't still purchasing music with '2.4 billion songs were purchased on iTunes as Apple expanded into overseas markets'

There's also been a study which states that file sharing has had a limited effect on record sales, researchers from Harvard University wrote that 'While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing' (2004). So basically if someone isn't going to buy an album they wont download it illegally. To some extent this refers to me, if i want to give an artist a listen i will download an album and see what its like; if i really like an artist i would go out and buy their album because i want a certainty that the quality will be good.

There's no doubt that the music industry has changed. Even if its effected record sales or not, the whole concept of listening to music has changed. The Top 40 on radio 1 on Sundays, now has an added download chart, people can listen to the radio online and through the TV, even through mobiles. Also there's an increase on user-generated sites like Youtube, where millions of music video's can be accessed, from different countries, before they've even been released in this country. This might change popular music; with such an array of music to choose from, people have more of a choice in what they listen too. This means that bands might be noticed and made famous, Lily Allen and Kate Nash were found through Myspace; a social networking site. These sites just create more outlets for musicians to express themselves and give the audiences something more in return. I think these changes are definately beneficial and good for society.



The Christian Science Monitor (2009) Can a 'Day of Sharing' save the music industry?http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0225/p12s01-ussc.html

John Borland (2004) Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

Topic 2 Week 4 - Social Networking Sites

'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' - Susan Greenfield a neuroscientist, talking about social networking sites in the Daily Mail (2009). What she's saying could be argued but i personally think its over dramatic. I love facebook like anyone else, but there's no way that i could use the site as my base for social interaction.

Mark Vernon from the Guardian (2009) has countered this argument by saying that there's not enough evidence to suggest these claims by Susan Greenfield. He talks about a friend called Lisa who used these sites as a lifeline. She had problems in her life and talked about it on the internet, her friends and family did the best they could in supporting her but the emails and replies she got from these sites was uplifting. He basically says that all thats a bit of 'common sense', use it wisely and when you need it. I dont think anyone would live their life like that, their whole life on social networking sites.

He also looked at two Taiwanese psychologists who published results in a peer-reviewed journal, CyberPsychology and Behaviour, which suggested that hundreds of students who blog, say how they feel more socially responsible and better connected, not less. Their virtual exchanges complement their offline relationships, leading to a deepening of both. I think this is very true. I can talk to the people that i see out and about daily, then in the evening i can talk to my family who live in Brighton, even my 11 year old brother on MSN and people who might not talk to if i didnt use social networking sites. It sustains relationships instead of the other way round.








http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/25/socialnetworking-neuroscience


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html

Topic 1 Week 4 - Blanchard Question F

Is it fair to say that ‘community is in the eye of the user(s)’, in the sense that it is about what’s on offer and how people respond to it, rather than saying any collection of people interacting online is a community?

There are 4 dimensions in which a community is developed

1. Feelings of membership
2. Feelings of influence
3. Intergration and fulfillment of needs
4. Shared emotional connection

This all possible from forming a community online. To some extent i think that 'community is in the eye of the user', someone could constantly be a lurker, which might detach them from a community. However if a user has sense of one of the four dimensions, then they could be part of anything, especially the last point; if a person has frequent interaction with something, their going to feel like their involved. This is my opinion anyways. I often go onto my favourite bands fansite, i read the forums, never respond, but feel like im part of that community because of my 'shared emotional connection' to it.

Macmillian, D. W., & Chavis, D.M (1986) 'Sense of Community: A defintion and theory' Journal of Community Psychology, vol.14, pp 6-23