The Future of Music

Internet radio is becoming increasingly more popular for many reasons.  In addition to downloading music from iTunes or pirating music through torrent websites, people are looking for another way to listen to music. People don't really want to spend more money on albums with only a couple of songs that they want to listen to. They also want to discover more music than whats on the traditional mainstream radio. They are more active and want to have access to music while they are on the go.

People can access a massive library of music via Spotify for free. Create a personalized radio station on Pandora. Listen to live streaming radio on iTunes and iHeartRadio. The services range from live-streaming, personalized radio, and on-demand. I have tried each of these services and I have to say I've been impressed by Spotify. Mainly because it gives users direct access to pretty much every artist and every album they ever created for free (shuffle play only but who cares?). The only drawback to it's service is if you want to listen to a specific song you have to pay $10 for the service, but if you are a college student they offer it for $5.

The advent of Internet radio has a lot of benefits to music listeners and artists alike. Pandora claims to pay artists millions of dollar for the rights to have their music on its service. However, not much is known about how the other services pay for licensed music.

It's hard to say where Internet radio will go from here and how it will impact the music industry over time, but for now it's here to stay. I hope that all artists will be able to profit greatly from it as we watch the big record labels crumble.

http://blog.pandora.com/2012/10/09/pandora-and-artist-payments/

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2013/09/the-new-mainstream-2013-new-research-into-streaming-audio.php#.U4yxaiJiy_V

Game Over

I grew up with video games, as many kids my age did. It could take months to beat a video game and sometimes they were almost impossible to beat. Nowadays though, games have gotten too easy. I can't generalize an entire industry with a wide range of genres, but most games are being dished out as fast as Little Caesars Hot N' Ready pizza.

Things were simpler, even just a few years ago. The experience of playing a game was actually an experience, by that I mean, there was an entire story and world that could leave you couch-locked for days on end. No matter who made the game, or the type of game, there was a ton of playability (even re-playability) and you'd be rewarded for doing so. Again, this isn't the case for all games, but now it seems like role-playing games are the only game type capable of keeping players in their seats.

I believe the rise of downloadable content, also known as DLC, is one of the culprits responsible for bringing less to the table, despite the illusion to add more to the game. DLC is supposed to bring more content, more playability, and it does but at a price. The brand new $60 game you just bought is almost certain to have a $20-$40 "season pass" that is supposed to bring you more gaming throughout the year after the game's release. So now if you want to experience the game in it's entirety you have to cough up some extra cash, or as I would imagine, younger gamers have to ask their parents for more money for a game they just bought for them. Oddly enough, after a game and all the DLC has been released, in about a years time, the game is generally bundled with the DLC for $60.

The trend to include DLC for games stems from the PC gaming world, where "expansion packs" were first created. However, expansion packs were often developed after the game had already been released and the goal was to re-spark interest in the game by creating all-new modes, characters, and stories. The DLC for console games seems to leave me scratching my head and asking the question, shouldn't this content have been shipped with the game?

The Story Is Never Over

Pretty much everything now has adapted to the transmedia model of storytelling. It's a concept that I feel like most people have never even thought about until they investigate the definition, myself included. It wasn't really until the Intro to New Media class that I really understood how long transmedia storytelling has been happening.

Growing up I was a huge fan of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and yes, I admit it, even Pokemon. I owned the movies, CDs, watched the shows, and played the video games. I was immersed in the stories and characters and just couldn't get enough. Sure, kids TV shows and movies have been making toys to go along with them for years but it hasn't really been part of the transmedia experience. It wasn't really existent until the 90's, with the rise of the Internet and video gaming devices that media content creators took advantage of the concept. Looking back at it now, I understand how much profit there was to be made and why the ship has started sailing this course. I think its only one of the ways that companies have started prepping children to become product consumers.

The main argument for transmedia storying telling is that building a world and its characters takes a lot of time and money. So why not create the story's universes to be never ending instead of subject to a linear plot? Great argument, but I'm sure it's truth lies behind the amounts of money to be made off of it. Not saying it's a bad thing, but I think some TV shows and movies don't really deserve this sort of legacy treatment because in most cases stories need an end. Leaving everything open to interpretation and expanding the story will just become an obvious gimmick to get people to buy more, which I think could end up turning off consumers if the quality of storytelling starts to dwindle.

Overall, I think transmedia storytelling is very interesting. I think it is a great way to get media consumers to become more active in the discussion. I hardly enjoy it now than the way I did when I was a child, but that won't keep me from shouting, "it's morphin' time!"

Social Media: Till Death Do We Part… Well, Maybe.

Want to stay on top of your social media accounts even after you die? There's an app for that.

http://ifidie.net

It's a nice idea to leave a message for family and friends after you die but is Facebook really the way to do it? I mean, couldn't you just record a video or write a message and put in a box for someone to read on that fateful day? I really don't know and I doubt my opinion matters.

When someone dies, their social media accounts can be a great place for the family and friends to mourn and memorialize the person's life. This can be done by loved ones posting on the deceased's wall and looking through their profile pictures. The profile lives on and perhaps the person's spirit as well, but when do we draw the line between selfishness and respect for the dead?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but if I want to say something to a loved one that has passed away I think it; I pray it. If I want to remember the one's I've lost I'll look through photographs or talk about them with someone. It's just the way it has always been done because at one point it was the only way society knew how to cope with death. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that leaving a message for family and friends on Facebook is a bad idea. I just think it's kind of creepy.

This, however is very creepy:
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/ghost-writer-tweet-from-beyond-the-grave-with-liveon-334133

If the ifidie app only crossed the line, then this app goes well over the line. An app that continues to post tweets for you after you die is a little absurd and even a little humorous. With the app's tagline, "when your heart stops beating, you'll keep tweeting," there's not really much more to say.

I'll be sure to give my future spouse the email and password to my social media sites, so when I die, my newsfeed won't be bothered by selfies and pictures of food. 

Cybervetting: Problem or Solution?

Should employers and schools be able to look at people's social media sites in the hiring and accepting processes? I believe this is a very complex and touchy issue for a couple reasons.

I feel that anyone who posts content that could be deemed inappropriate to their social networking site should understand that while they think it might be "cool" other people may find it not so cool. If a person has an obvious obsession with posting pictures of themselves getting drunk and doing drugs then I think employers and schools have a right to make a judgment call in the acceptance process.

It may weed out the bad from the good but everyone should have the right to defend themselves. For example, someone who may be interested in tattoos may "like" and post pictures of their own tattoos and should have the right to without being judged. While online profiles are an extension of ourselves, they may not always portray the personality and character of the real life individual. However, putting out information and content for the whole world to see and not considering those who may see it is unacceptable.

While cybervetting is becoming a more common way of doing background checks on individuals, I think that people should become more aware of this and adapt their online profiles appropriately.

Cyber-Bullying: What Should Be Done About It?

Cyber-bullying seems to be getting more attention now that younger generations are being introduced to the Internet and social media. In reality, bullying has always existed but I feel that this problem is finally getting the attention it deserves.  When I was younger, I don't remember seeing any of the anti-bullying ads that are on TV today, so I hope that the younger generations are hearing this message and understand that bullying won't make you popular or well liked. However, now that schools are taking a more direct approach by accepting a zero tolerance policy this brings an important question into the discussion. Should schools be allowed to police their students social media activity?

Truthfully, I don't really know how I feel about it. Sure it may stop the bullying but at what cost? With more research being done, we understand that those that bully others tend to have problems in their own life and use bullying as a method to feel better about their personal situations. We also know that students that tend to bully belong to the minority. The problem then, seems to rest on parenting and the fact that children and teens are not mature.

I think that schools should be allowed to monitor their student's online activity in school, but not outside of that. If the school suspects a student of bullying, I believe that the student's parents should be addressed about the issue first before any action should be taken. If the problem persists, then I think schools should be able to provide evidence of the bullying to the bully's parents as a final warning, however, they should also provide a counselor to the bully in the meantime. Finally, if there is no change in behavior then I think the school should be able to step in and make the call on whether or not the student should be expelled or suspended.

Net Neutrality Neutralized

Major Internet service providers have been trying to get rid of net neutrality for almost a decade and soon it might become a reality. The importance of net neutrality has been getting a lot of attention lately and for good reason. Without net neutrality, ISPs would be able to give preferential treatment to their own content, as well as, other Internet media content companies. ISPs would be able to do this by creating fast and slow lanes on the Internet. This opens the possibility of the ISP companies offering deals to media content companies like, Netflix and Hulu, which would allow them on the fast lane for a fee. If this happens, any new media content streaming sites could be shut down because of competition with well-established companies that can afford fast lane access.

I don’t believe this is fair for Americans who pay for Internet and media streaming services. We shouldn’t have to decide on which ISP we are going to go with because of what media-streaming site we use or the devices we use. Net neutrality ensures equal-priority delivery of all content from the Internet to any of its users, which I feel is an idea that all Internet users, especially Americans, should embrace. Though the Federal Communications Commission has made provisions to the net neutrality bill, it is still a possibility that companies will find loopholes to limit other competitor’s services. Where there is money to be made, we can be sure that the media conglomerates will do everything in their power to get a piece of the action.