7.6.11: Ween is a band that I like, though I feel I am 'growing out of them' as is consistent with other 'favorite bands' of mine, I've found, as I continue to grow older. Regardless they will always be a band I enjoy on some level so allow me to use them as a starting point in this brief discussion about the ownership of social networking 'handles'.
The above screenshot was taken from the @ween Twitter handle page. The avatar of said handle is what appears to be a Weezer Zippo-brand lighter image. The 'owner' of twitter.com/ween last tweeted on February 5th when he responded to an impromptu Twitter poll by Peter King (writer for Sports Illustrator) which asked the question: "Roger Goodell says fans favor 18-game schedule. Do you? Tell me if you want A: 2 pre-s, 18 reg-sea ... B: 4 pre, 16 reg ... C: 2 pre, 16 reg." @ween answered "C."
Ween, or at least Ween's management, has not shied away from social networking and new media. They have a plethora of sosh netty icons near the masthead of their website. They even have an iPhone app. All official offerings controlled by the band and/or their people. So is Ween just anti-Twitter or did the fact that @ween was already taken effect their decision not to partake?
Who cares. I'm not going to try to answer that. This is a question about identity and identity rights and not about whether one rock band finds Twitter lame and Facebook cool. For instance, I couldn't start a band called Ween and start playing shows as Ween, that would never fly, that isn't even 'legal' per say. So why is it cool/accepted that anyone can take up digital residence at [----].com/ween or ween.[----].com or etc. etc? How is it any different? You hear stories about how 'early adaptors' have been able to sell brand name social media handles to companies and organizations for ridiculous cash, and it just doesn't seem fair. Maybe I'm being naive (and I'm usually the 'anti-corporation guy' in pretty much any argument) but this is exactly the opposite of how a 'similar situation' would play out in the real world. For example (if this is how it worked), Ween would have to pay me NOT to go on tour as Ween, as opposed to them suing me, which is what would almost certainly be the case.
So how did it come to be that a band could be pissed about you downloading an MP3 but somehow OK that you stole their entire identity on a major marketing platform. Why is the one thing that seems far worse and detrimental, accepted, while the little, mostly benign (if not beneficial) thing, 'illegal'?
Follow @vernonhowl on Twitter
0 comments:
Post a Comment