Mac281 The Suits Vs The Scene

1,015 views

Published on

Updated session slides for the MAC281 lecture on music piracy

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,015
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
71
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mac281 The Suits Vs The Scene

  1. 1. MAC281 robert.jewitt@sunderland.ac.uk http://twitter.com/rob_jewitt 1
  2. 2.   Early discourse surrounding file-sharing fell into 2 camps: 1.  File-sharing threatens the livelihood of artists 2.  Fan-friendly celebratory explanations on how to ‘do’ file-sharing 2
  3. 3.   Early discourse surrounding file-sharing fell into 2 camps: 1.  File-sharing threatens the livelihood of artists 2.  Fan-friendly celebratory explanations on how to ‘do’ file-sharing   First point reconfigured as: 1.  File-sharing threatens the livelihood of conglomerates (Rodman & Vanderdonckt, 2006: 245-6) 3
  4. 4. 4
  5. 5. 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9.   download music = lost sales revenue   a limited economic notion   music is prone to personal, cultural, social & political meaning processes 9
  10. 10.   Bagdikian (2004) claims that media monopolies not only know this, they count on it.   Fans &‘their’ favourite band/artist/song/etc   The value and price of music are 2 different things 10
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 1.  The reasons given by social scientists as to why people file share 2.  Explanation how music gets online 3.  Common reasons given by pirates as to why people share files 12
  13. 13.   Between 3-10% of artists recoup industry expenses (Leyshon, 2005: 187)   EMI sales down by £50m in 2006   Profit of £110m   Industry is not interested in merely making a profit, but in maximising profits 13
  14. 14.   Usersseek ‘to redress perceived moral and economic wrongs’ (Rojek, 2005: 362)   Rich vs. poor   Music industry vs. music fans   The suits vs. the scene 14
  15. 15.   The industry not only makes money from music, but from the hardware used to pirate it   (Rodman & Vanderdonkct, 2006: 253-4)   Social bandits don’t see themselves as criminals   ‘Normalization’ thesis   (Parker 1998, 2002) 15
  16. 16. Rojek, 2005: 365   ‘Owners of Mac computers were presented with a product that extended the performance of their computers. The issue of law-breaking was obscured by Apple- Mac’s tried and tested “Think Different” advertising campaign, which privileged Mac users as distinctive, creative mavericks operating in consumer culture which, by implication, was portrayed as bland and docile’ 16
  17. 17.   A collectionof secretive Release Groups   Kudos for being the 1st with a pre- release piece of:   Software   CD/DVD   Video games   eBooks   code 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. 21
  22. 22. 22
  23. 23.   Exclusive invite-only private torrent community   Specialised in high quality sound recordings   Registered in the UK, hosted in the Netherlands & had users from 150+ countries. 23
  24. 24. 24
  25. 25. 25
  26. 26. Explosions in the Sky: Kings Soundsystem: Sound a Times Arcade Fire: Neon Bible of of Sudden Air: Pocket Symphony Allof theSilver I Miss Everyone LCD of Leon: Because Release date: March ndth 262007 ReleaseDate: February2007 2007 date: April 2 5 2007 March 19th th 26
  27. 27. 27
  28. 28. 28
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. UK release date: 21st Feb 2009 30
  31. 31. 31
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. 35
  36. 36. The ‘Hydra’? 36
  37. 37. 37
  38. 38. 1.  File-sharers resent years of overpriced products (expensive CDs & ‘filler’) 2.  Pre-release exclusivity 3.  Discover new music/ lost classics without financial risk 4.  Community spirit (private sites, social networks, blogs) 5.  Very easy to do and low risk! 6.  Reaction against mainstream mass-produced pap/pop 7.  Fan ownership of musical products & free will vs. industry 8.  DRM encourages passivity and limits future development/creativity 9.  The sound quality of legitimate digital music is insufficient for many audiophiles 10.  Music consumption has changed 38
  39. 39.   Gillespie (2006) identifies users of various technologies have tampered with them to produce innovative and imaginative results (culture of hacking)   Remixing? Mash-ups? Bootlegs?   Intellectual property vs. end-users   (see www.eff.org)   ‘Fair Use’ law 39
  40. 40. 40
  41. 41.   CDs:   Cactus Data Shield   DVDs:   RCE; CSS; Macrovision   HD-DVD/Blu-Ray restrictions   Microsoft Vista 41
  42. 42. 42
  43. 43. Mackay & Gillespie, 1992: 698-9   ‘People are not merely malleable subjects who submit to the dictates of a technology; in their consumption, they are not the passive dupes suggested by crude theorists of ideology, but active, creative and expressive – albeit socially situated – subjects. 43
  44. 44. Mackay & Gillespie, 1992: 698-9   ‘People may reject technologies, redefine their functional purpose, customize or even invest idiosyncratic symbolic meanings in them. Indeed they may redefine a technology in a way that defies its original, designed and intended purpose … However, the appropriation of a technology cannot be entirely separated from its design and development: technologies are designed for particular purposes’ 44
  45. 45.   Filesharing embraced by music fans and (some) artists as a means to transform the relationship between producer and consumer   Pirates don’t see themselves as criminals   Filesharing is hierarchical and social   Filesharing is not the end of relationship between musicians and fans 45
  46. 46.   B. Bagdikan, 2004, The New Media Monopoly, Boston: Beacon Press.   Tarleton Gillespie, 2006, ‘Designed to “effectively frustrate”: copyright, technology and the agency of users’ in New Media & Society, Vol. 8, No. 4.   Courtney Love, 2000, ‘Courtney Love does the math’ available at http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html   Hugh Mackay & G Gillespie, 1992, ‘Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation’ in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4.   H. Parker, J. Aldridge & F. Measham, 1998, Illegal Leisure: the Normalization of Adolescent Recreation Drug Use, London: Routledge.   H. Parker, L. Williams & J. Aldridge, 2002, ‘The normalisation of “sensible” recreational drug use: further evidence from the North-West England Longitudinal Study’ in Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 4.   Gilbert B. Rodman & Cheyanne Vanderdonckt, 2006, ‘Music For Nothing Or, I Want My MP3: The regulation and recirculation of affect’ in Cultural Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2-3.   Chris Rojek, 2005, ‘P2P Leisure exchange - net banditry and the policing of intellectual property’ in Leisure Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4   Robbie Williams, 2003, ‘Music piracy “great”, says Robbie’ available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2673983.stm   http://www.eff.org/ 46
  47. 47. 47
  48. 48.   S1, ToobyDoo, 2008, “Piracy”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/toobydoo/2476286356/   S8-10, Liako, 2009, “Piracy: it’s a crime”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/liako/3558668316/   S12, Dr Stephen Dann, 2006, “piracyisacrime 29—09-2005 9-51-37 PM”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephendann/80725933/   S13-15, c3o, 2006, “Anti piracy ads”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/c3o/244072083/   S16, 40, Selma90, 2009, “Apple”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/selma90/3675162262/   S41, Jamougha, 2009, “DVD Magic”, P47, Selma90, 2009, “Apple” http://www.flickr.com/photos/selma90/3675162262/   S43-44, scribbletaylor, 2009, “20th April: Technology and gadgets”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/64958688@N00/3463716076/   S48, A. Diez Herrero, 2007, “creative commons -Franz Patzig-”, http://www.flickr.com/photos/21572939@N03/2090542246/ 48

×