I just had a long rant on my old blog (the Griffith ‘official’ one). I’m not sure why, but that interface really irks me. I seem to continually get annoyed every time I sit down to write something there.

It got me thinking though about the whole web2.0 thing. Web2.0 is supposed to be about use-generated content, about community and involvement, and yet, there seems to be a need for control as well as other issues that are really starting to surface. I noted this morning (via my sister) that the whole web2.0 sharing thing is problematic. It seems (according to the New York Times) that web2.0 site Bebo.com has been sold for a whopping $850 million. That strikes me (and Billy too) as being quite amazing particularly as the whole of the site is based around user-generated content. Apparently, the owner of Bebo wanted to make sure that it was good for artists to put their music on the site, that there wasn’t an implied licence to use stuff perpetually (which a lot of licences state), but how then does he justify making so much of the back of these artists? How does he get to sell something for so much that has little value without the user-generated content? When will we see a licence that states that if (when?) the site is sold for a whopping amount some of that will be returned to some of the artists who busted their guts to get stuff out and some recognition? Why isn’t some of that being returned to the creative people?

It seems to me that we’re setting up a similar system to the old ‘labels’, where they make the money and the artist just gets recognition. Recognition won’t pay the bills, sadly.

There seems to be two kinds of social network system being set up. There is the open resources variety (kind of like Wikipedia and WikiEducator) where the objective is to get more content out there for the benefit of millions, and the other sort, which is supposedly open, but which results in someone making millions while the bunnies trying to make it work in some way to make a living make nothing except an increased reputation. I can easily participate in the former (I do have a job that keeps me going, although for how long given my latest rant), and I have very little to offer in the the latter (yes, I can sing, but it’s just not very pleasurable for anyone else). So how do we get these two different models doing what they do best? Getting things to people who want or need them?

At one level, I suppose that’s one of the differences. People need educational resources, but we want music, we want the cultural value of those other resources, we want to belong even just through the knowing of something that speaks to us. Many of us are willing to pay for that, provided we don’t feel ripped off (think of the time wasted watching all those ‘piracy is bad’ messages at the beginning of movies – we just paid for the frelling thing, but if we rip it, if we break some laws in some places we don’t have to put up with being accused of that which we just did in order to avoid being called pirates).

I just mispelt accused as acussed. I think there was a message in that.