Merge pubs and articles to writing

3 files changed, 0 insertions, 786 deletions

diff --git a/pubs/consent.txt b/pubs/consent.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index dd93d19..0000000
--- a/pubs/consent.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,273 +0,0 @@
-Issues of consent in human-animal sexual relations
-=======================================================================
-
-### Nick White  
-### 2008
-
-Introduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-This paper arose from a talk I gave for the Lampeter Anthrozoology
-society, which I did not expect to seriously pursue. However in the
-preparation and subsequent discussion of the talk I stumbled upon a
-host of issues that I found very interesting indeed. This paper is an
-attempt to follow up on one of the thorniest issues raised, that of
-consent in human-animal sexual relations; how it may be judged, and
-why it matters.
-
-I'll start by giving a little information on key terms, and how I'm
-using them here. I will then go on to explain in greater detail the
-question that this paper addresses. Next will be a review of relevant
-anthropological theory, and how it may be applied to better understand
-the debate. I will follow this with an examination and deconstruction
-of some of the justifications given for the special treatment of
-zoophilia compared to other areas of human-animal interaction, and
-then conclude with a discussion of the implications of research in
-this area for anthropology.
-
-The conversations upon which this work is based are responses are
-gathered from entirely informal discussions friends; they are not
-informed by any fieldwork or rigorous methodology.
-
-
-Key Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-First an explanation of potentially the most ambiguous term I'm using
-here: zoophilia. Different scholars have put this term to many
-different uses over the years, but with the emergence of a
-self-identified zoo community the word has taken a more definite and
-stable form. Zoophilia, as used by members of the community, refers to
-the romantic love of non-human animals, which while not necessarily
-entailing sexual expression, does tend to imply it. I will be focusing
-on the sexual aspect of such relationships in this paper.
-
-The term bestiality refers more strictly to sexual acts between human
-and non-human animals. Whether use of the term is appropriate to refer
-to sexual contact as part of a loving relationship is not widely
-agreed upon.
-
-'Zoo' is a self-identifying and self-created term for members of the
-community of zoophiles which grew up and thrived in the more anonymous
-and safe spaces offered by Fidonet and the Internet.
-
-
-Question Addressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Zoophilia is often referred to as 'one of the last taboos' in Western
-Europe and America, and problematic as such an assertion may be it is
-undeniable that many people feel uncomfortable about the topic, in
-many cases considering intra-species sex as an abhorrent and
-incomprehensible activity. When pressed beyond answers along the lines
-of "it's just gross" and "it's wrong," the reasons people gave me for
-their objections often revolved around issues of consent. Zoophiles
-often respond to accusations of non-consensual sex by pointing to the
-great physical strength of the animals they engage with and the
-resultant ease with which the animal could end the sex act if it so
-chose. However this answer fails to address the issue of informed
-consent and coercion, which are at the heart of the argument. An
-animal can not be understood definitely enough to know if it consents,
-and even if it could it is doubtful that such consent could be
-considered 'informed.'
-
-The question which interests me in the response of my informants is
-why consent is seen as necessary at all. Consent is not considered as
-important in a great many human-animal interactions, from sleeping
-arrangements to reproductive activity (in the case of neutering or
-artificial insemination) to killing and consuming for reasons of
-dietary preference, all of which would be considered utterly
-unacceptable in human-human interactions without the consent of each
-party. (Whether human-human killing is acceptable if consent is
-granted is a controversial issue, as can be seen in debates
-surrounding euthanasia.)
-
-
-Review of Relevant Theory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-A reasonable place to start to examine and answer these questions is
-in a review of relevant anthropological theory. In particular I'll be
-looking at how Ingold's model of Trust and Domination and Milton's
-work on Egomorphism are useful in understanding the varying reactions
-of people to zoophilia.
-
-First, though, it's worth quickly reviewing the idea of a dichotomy
-between humanity and 'nature' (which includes animals). Put simply,
-this model conceives humans as a combination of two distinct parts,
-part nature and part transcendent of nature (expressed in theology as
-the body and the soul). According to this belief system humans are
-fundamentally different from their surroundings, and moreover "it is
-the proper destiny of human beings to *overcome* the condition of
-animality to which the life of all other creatures is confined"
-(Ingold 1994: 2 [original emphasis]). The mark of a 'civilised'
-person, to which all should aspire, is the extent to which they have
-cultivated their transcendent self, suppressing that which is
-identified with nature.
-
-It is quite simple to see why Zoophilia would be problematic in such a
-model. In sexually engaging with an animal, a person necessarily
-rejects their transcendent self - and all that their 'civilised
-society' has been built to overcome - and instead embraces their
-animal nature. Simultaneously to this the 'wildness' of the animal is
-compromised, thus also unfairly disturbing its place in the order of
-things.
-
-Such ideologies are alive and well today - with arguments frequently
-framed in terms which make it difficult to think outside of them (Bell
-and Russell 2000: 192) - but they are little help in addressing issues
-of consent. Under such models animals are so unquestionably
-oppressable by and different from humans that they are simply not
-empowered to give or refuse consent regarding any human action.
-Arguments for the importance of consent, which I am focusing on here,
-cannot then rest upon such a model.  
-
-A more illuminating model for our purposes may be found in Tim
-Ingold's theory of trust and domination, which he elaborates in
-considering the different engagements with non-human animals of
-hunter-gatherers and pastoralists.
-
-In his model hunter-gatherers do not seek to entirely control their
-food supply, but rather trust that appropriate engagements with the
-animals they wish to eat will provide a good and reasonable amount of
-food, in quantities and qualities acceptable both to the animal and
-the hunter. Such a view attributes agency to all actors, and
-presupposes an active and participatory engagement between species
-(Ingold 1994: 13-15).
-
-Pastoralists, by contrast, seek to entirely control and manage their
-food supply, by means of domination. Consent of an animal is not
-considered as relevant to the task of food production. Animals
-pastorally managed "are cared for, but are not themselves empowered to
-care," with the herdsman taking the role of "protector, guardian and
-executioner" (Ingold 1994: 16). While animals are allowed some
-freedoms, this is only within the bounds defined by the humans
-'managing' them. In the words of Bill Hicks, "You are free (to do what
-we tell you)."
-
-This turns out to be a quite nice way of contrasting different views of
-zoophilic engagements with animals. Zoophiles, on the one hand,
-generally see their relations with animals as based on trust, in which
-the animal is empowered to give or refuse consent, and each party in
-the relationship may offer themselves freely to the other. Those who
-argue against zoophilia on grounds of consent, however, view such
-engagements as inevitably dominated by the will of the human - the
-animal being powerless to resist - and any human 'interference' is
-therefore necessarily exploitative.
-
-The most useful theory for examining consent in zoophilia however is
-Kay Milton's model of egomorphism. Here Milton suggests that rather
-than anthropomorphically stating that people perceive animal
-characteristics as like humans' (and thereby implying that they really
-can not be), it is far more accurate to talk of people perceiving
-individual characteristics of an animal as similar to certain of their
-own characteristics. She then goes further, noting, with Ingold, that
-one will perceive quite different characteristics and meanings based
-on how one interacts with the environment.
-
-The large variety of meanings which may be interpreted from the
-perception of similar situations will inevitably result in different
-ethical implications. While consent may be easily recognised by many
-people in many situations, its recognition will be dependant on how
-one interacts with their surrounding environment. Where a zoophile may
-perceive an animal raising its tail as a clear invitation, a
-non-zoophile may perceive it as an automatic reaction, an example of
-confusion, or equally likely will not notice it at all. Here then we
-also encounter the tricky problem of 'only seeing what you want to
-see'.
-
-The lack of any significant weighing in of the scientific
-establishment on the psychological capabilities and limitations of
-animals (at least in the public consciousness), coupled with the
-increased difficulty most feel in communicating with an animal which
-is not able to speak their language, leads to a large range of
-observed characteristics in animals between different people. This
-correspondingly leads to a significant difference of moral
-implications, and hence to increased conflict.
-
-
-Deconstruction of Justifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-All of this good theory has however yet to completely address the
-central question of this paper; why is consent more important for
-human-animal sex than interactions such as human-animal killing?
-
-Bolliger and Goetschel, both lawyers, argue in a recent essay (2005)
-that animals should be legally protected from sexual advances made by
-humans. Their arguments are not unique. The most relevant part of the
-article follows:
-
-> One should act on the assumption that the animal's consent is
-> forced, either through an *artificial* fixation on a person or by
-> use of other *psychological methods*... Admittedly, in our society
-> many animals are used against their will for other purposes, such as
-> animal testing or the production of food... However, different to
-> zoophilia, most of these actions can be *socially justified*.  
-> (Bolliger and Goetschel 2005: 40 [added emphasis])
-
-Firstly it's worth quickly examining the contention that animals could
-only give consent after 'psychological methods' were used by humans.
-It seems odd that psychology is presented as a particularly unfair and
-manipulative part of a relationship; psychology is after all generally
-considered a completely inevitable facet of human relationships.
-Furthermore, to deny the acceptability of any power differentials -
-which are of course present in any relationship - is hardly reasonable
-or realistic.
-
-The argument that industries such as animal testing and food
-'production' may be 'socially justified,' but zoophilia may not, is
-also rather odd. Zoophilia is, after all, inherently social, and
-moreover is argued to be an attempt at the pinnacle of social
-relationships for zoophiles, namely a relationship of love and
-fulfilment which may not even be possible for them with other humans.
-To argue then that this is less 'socially justified' than the desire
-to have a larger variety of food, cosmetics and cleaning products,
-doesn't seem to me to be reasonable, at least not without further
-justification.
-
-
-Conclusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-It is difficult to find many detailed examinations of why consent is
-more important in areas of sex than other human-animal interactions in
-literature, and this presents itself therefore as a good area to
-conduct research. This paper in particular suffers from a very
-unfocused and vague sample of people, whom I fear I may be speaking
-more for than of, as well as the quite frequent and unsupported citing
-of the beliefs of an unqualified 'majority.'
-
-The issue of zoophilia, sparse as serious discourse on it may be,
-proves particularly capable at illuminating the models of
-classification through which people interpret the animals in their
-environment, in prompting people to confront the reasons for views
-which had previously been simply assumed.
-
-Works Cited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-- Ingold, T. (1994) 'From Trust to Domination', Animals and Human
-  Society: Changing Perspectives (ed. Manning, A & Serpell, J),
-  London: Routledge, pp 1-22
-- Bell, A & Russell, C. (2000) Beyond Human, Beyond Words:
-  Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,
-  Canadian Journal of Education, 25: 3, pp 188-203
-- Bolliger, G & Goetschel, A (2005) 'Sexual relations with animals
-  (zoophilia): An unrecognised problem in animal welfare legislation',
-  Anthrozoös: Bestiality and Zoophilia (ed. Beetz, A & Podberscek, A),
-  Indiana: Purdue University Press, pp 23-45
-
-
-Further Works
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-- Beetz, A & Podberscek, A (eds.) (2005) Anthrozoös: Bestiality and
-  Zoophilia Indiana: Purdue University Press
-- Cassidy, R (2007) Zoosex, Stimulus Respond, 18, pp 83-92
-- Ingold, T (ed.) (1988) What is an Animal London: Unwin Hyman
-- Miletski, H (2002) Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia Maryland:
-  East-West Publishing
-- Singer, P (2001)
-  [Heavy Petting](http://www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting),
-  Nerve
diff --git a/pubs/copyme.txt b/pubs/copyme.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index aef4cc4..0000000
--- a/pubs/copyme.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,485 +0,0 @@
-Copy me: Technological change and the consumption of music
-=======================================================================
-
-### Nick White  
-### 2009
-
-> For those who worry about the cultural, economic and political power
-> of the global media companies, the dreamed-of revolution is at hand.
-> The industry may right now be making a joyful noise unto the Lord,
-> but it is we, not they, who are about to enter the promised land.
-> (Moglen 2001)
-
-Introduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Technological changes have political implications. Changing the way we
-interact with things encourages a reconsideration of the rules and
-institutions that have governed previous interactions with them.
-
-The current debate about copies of recorded music using the Internet
-is an excellent example of this, and by examining it one may better
-understand the relations between people and recorded music, and
-between listeners and the traditional publishers of music.
-
-While undoubtedly a great deal may be usefully said and examined in
-other technological changes in music recordings, I will here focus
-primarily on filesharing, as it is something I have been somewhat
-involved in myself, and hence I have significantly more knowledge
-'from the inside.'
-
-I will begin by discussing traditional definitions of 'commodity,'
-and then move on to a very brief overview of historical trends in
-copying and music recording. I will also touch upon the printing
-press in order to discuss the creation and rationale behind copyright
-laws, which form a major part the present filesharing debate. I will
-then go into greater depth into the current practises of people who
-share music on filesharing networks, and the response by the recording
-industry, before embarking on an analysis of the meaning and
-significance of some of these new practises and dialogues.
-
-It should be noted that I'm speaking primarily of England and the
-United States of America, and the situation will be somewhat different
-in other parts of the world.
-
-
-The Meaning of 'Commodity'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-The word 'commodity' has been used variously to talk about items of
-exchange. In the capitalist market a 'commodity' is defined as having
-several key features, from which are derived appropriate rules of
-trade.
-
-Commodities are also generally assumed to be rival and exclusive; that
-is in trading an item one loses access to it.
-
-The most important feature of a commodity is that it be comparable to
-another commodity, in order that their relative values may be judged
-so that one may establish an exchange value for the item. Indeed
-Kopytoff (1986) goes so far as to claim that wherever exchange
-technology is introduced which allows a greater range of things to be
-compared (such as for example money in newly colonised regions), more
-objects are commodified.
-
-Two commonly identified means of deciding on the relative value of a
-commodity are use value and exchange value. Use value is based upon
-the utility of the commodity, whereas exchange value is based upon
-the amount of labour that went in to creating it. (Sterne 2006: 830)
-Different systems of exchange weigh the relative merits of utility
-versus production labour to value commodities differently.
-
-Assigning value to works of art is of course a very difficult and
-personal task, revealing a great deal about the valuer as well as
-what is being valued. Several commentators have argued - Adorno and
-Horkheimer (1972) perhaps most strongly - that to assign an artwork
-an agreed-upon value in order to facilitate its exchange undermines
-both the personal and the transcendent nature of art, and inevitably
-devalues and debases it.
-
-
-The History of Recorded Music
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-While such concepts of commodity appear to map quite easily onto most
-physical objects, using such terms to talk about recordings of one
-sort or another is generally less straightforward.
-
-Indeed the technology of the printing press, by dramatically reducing
-the production cost of creating copies of written works, was an early
-example of the difficulty of reconciling ideas of commodity with the
-new properties of exchange enabled. To be more specific, by enabling
-near-perfect copies of a work to be made, the qualities of rivalness
-and exclusivity which were assumed of a commodity were altered. While
-the initial creation costs of a work remained high, the cost of
-subsequent copies dropped dramatically, making it economically
-feasible to make and sell copies of works in a far less centralised
-manner.
-
-In the free market the cost to produce something is the means of
-determining its exchange value, which becomes more problematic when
-means of mechanical reproduction become available. This is as the
-production cost differs very significantly between the item produced
-and its copy. Whereas the first work costs perhaps one year's salary
-for an author, plus the amount for the set up of the book in the
-press, plus the materials needed, plus the working of the press, a
-great many subsequent copies may be made for only the cost of
-additional materials and working the press again. The exchange-value
-of all subsequent copies is extremely low, but does not take into
-account the author's salary.
-
-Publishers chose to create a business model in which the initial
-production costs of a work could be compensated by subsequent
-printings, which would be priced a little over the exchange value
-which the free market would assign. However such a model was
-undermined if a competitor took a work which had already been
-paid-for and produced their own copies at a price closer to its
-exchange value. In order for publishers to ensure the feasibility of
-their business-model concepts of copyright were enshrined into law,
-removing the right of anybody but the author (or more typically a
-publisher designated by them) to print a given work.
-
-In so doing publishers legally repressed the new economic qualities
-printing presses bestowed on the written word - less exclusivity -
-and instead artificially mirrored the model of scarcity under which
-which the majority of the market operated.
-
-This way of business worked reasonably well, and when it became
-feasible to produce of mechanical reproductions of music, publishers
-adopted essentially the same model, using copyright laws to ensure a
-monopoly sufficient to pay back the initial creation costs.
-
-However this model was threatened somewhat by the introduction of new
-technologies which dramatically decreased the expense, size and
-difficulty of copying music to the point that many private individuals
-could do so themselves. Whereas previously making unauthorised copies
-had been limited to large operations, new technology now enabled a
-much larger group of people to copy and share recorded music,
-independent of any external organisation. While such home-copied music
-was generally of noticeably poorer quality than an officially
-sanctioned copy, widespread use made clear that for many the virtue of
-sharing music was worth some degradation in quality.
-
-Publishers were unsurprisingly hostile towards home copying of the
-work which they had released, invoking the fact that such activity was
-technically breaking copyright laws (though these laws had been
-drafted with rival businesses in mind), and arguing that home copying
-was causing a reduction in their sales of music which would result in
-a smaller number of musicians able to be supported by them.
-(Commentators such as Adorno and Horkheimer (1972) argue that a
-smaller pool of musicians would make no real difference to the quality
-of output from the publishers, as by their nature they homogenise and
-will only support acts which propound their world-view. See below.)
-Over time however the publishers found that there was no realistic way
-to stop home-copying, and resigned themselves to a position of quiet
-grumbling. People evidently still bought copies of music produced by
-publishers, due to factors such as increased sound quality and
-included cover artwork, and the belief that by doing so one was
-ensuring the continuance and success of the musician.
-
-With the new technologies of music compression, filesharing software
-and cheap internet access came a far more significant threat to the
-business model of music publishers.
-
-Computers on an electronically are primarily copying machines of
-anything digitisable - almost any task performed on a computer
-requires the copying of digital information across various parts of
-the computer. The measure of how quickly information can be copied
-between different parts is a significant measure of how fast a
-computer is said to be. And so it is when networking computers
-together, and as such a primary focus of network engineering is
-ensuring copying between computers is as fast and efficient as
-possible. Computer networks at their core are no more than
-geographically insensitive copying systems.
-
-By allowing anybody with an internet connection to share music with
-anyone else with an internet connection with no more effort than
-setting up a filesharing program, a global network of available music
-was created. Now anybody with internet access had free access to
-almost any piece of recorded music at near- or identical quality to
-the products of the publishers' copies. Moreover the process of
-acquiring music copies using internet filesharing was faster and more
-convenient than the traditional vehicles offered by publishers.
-
-The structure of the computer networks which make up the internet are
-by design decentralised and fault-tolerant, and as such top-down
-control or restriction of internet activities is very difficult. This
-is further compounded by its transnational nature, which renders
-national legislation on acceptable uses largely ineffective, as one
-may simply access the desired material on a computer in a country
-which has no such legal restrictions. Thus we get the well-known quote
-by John Gilmore: "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes
-around it." While early filesharing networks such as Napster were
-centralised and hence could be easily shut down by stopping a few
-computers, most are now designed to take advantage of the
-decentralised nature of the internet, and thus remain active
-regardless of the status of any particular computer in the network.
-
-
-Filesharing: Individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-The first point to note regarding the practises of individuals is the
-enormous popularity of filesharing as a means of acquiring recordings
-of music. Despite appeals and threats from music publishers the usage
-of filesharing networks is commonplace among those comfortable with
-technology. Included among these are many artists signed to record
-labels, though many others reject filesharing citing reliance on a
-business model which would be undermined by their doing so.
-
-The importance within filesharing networks of making newly downloaded
-music available for at least a few days is very frequently emphasised,
-though technically it's very rarely enforced (not least because it's
-very difficult technically to do - as the networks have been
-engineered from the ground-up to facilitate the free copying of data).
-The process of only keeping a downloaded file available until one's
-own download is complete and then immediately removing access to
-others is strongly frowned upon, and referred to as 'leeching'.
-
-Some commentators have suggested that such emphases can lead one to
-fruitfully consider treating filesharing as a gift economy (Barbrook
-1998), but as Zerva (2008: 16) points out, the typically very diffuse,
-vague and anonymous social connections between exchange partners
-renders such a frame of analysis inappropriate. 
-
-That copyright law is being broken is very widely known by
-participants, but evidently is not regarded as a valid reason to
-change their habits. Indeed many who are more deeply involved in the
-filesharing community have vocally opposed (with varying degrees of
-sophistication) current copyright regimes as inappropriate and
-inapplicable in the era of the internet.
-
-Probably the largest and best organised of such opposition groups call
-themselves the 'free culture' movement. Inspired heavily by the 'free
-software' movement before them, at the centre of their beliefs are
-that it is an ethical imperative to allow the sharing of digital work,
-and in many cases also explicitly allow others to use one's work in
-their own creations. This is accomplished through a series of
-copyright licences (this again is an innovation first used in the free
-software movement, by which one allows redistribution of a work
-providing certain conditions are met.), the most popular of which are
-produced by the Creative Commons foundation, and allow several choices
-as to how one's work may be used. Some of these licenses, referred to
-as 'share-alike' licenses by creative commons, and more broadly as
-'copyleft' licenses, actively encourage the sharing of a work, by
-allowing one to modify or incorporate the work into their own work
-however they choose, providing that the resultant work is also
-released under the same sharable license. This effectively turns
-copyright law on its head, and has hence been described as "a form of
-intellectual jujitsu." (Williams 2002)
-
-
-Filesharing: The Publishing Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-The response from the music publishers was unsurprisingly less
-enthusiastic. After cutting the head off Napster only to find a
-hundred new networks spring up, the publishers started an aggressive
-campaign to sell the idea that music recordings ought to be treated as
-any physical commodity, and moreover that copying a recording was no
-different to stealing from a shop. Indeed the rhetoric of 'stealing'
-and 'theft' was employed a great deal by the industry, in an attempt
-to ensure that any discussion of filesharing would be framed in terms
-implying that recordings were no different from physical items.
-
-When it became clear that a significant number of people were not
-swayed by their advertisements, and filesharing networks were
-technically nigh-impossible to dismantle, the Recording Industry
-Association of America (RIAA), soon followed by the British
-Phonographic Industry (BPI), started the highly controversial practise
-of suing individuals who made their copies available on filesharing
-networks for copyright infringement. With estimates of numbers of
-people sharing copyrighted material reaching the millions it was clear
-that the lawsuits were not intended to directly target each individual
-offender, but rather scare enough people into stopping to make the
-filesharing networks less attractive and useful. Indeed it appears
-that industry hoped that by targeting prolific 'seeders' (that is
-people who share a large amount of content) they would change the
-economic situation to one in which the best path for the individual
-(according to classical game-theory) would be to only download what
-they needed and share as little as possible, hence initiating the
-conditions for a tragedy of the commons type scenario. Thus far
-however such tactics have primarily served to provoke resentment
-towards the industry, thus for many adding the motivation of fighting
-a system seen as destructive.
-
-Industry groups have also lobbied for and won significantly more
-stringent copyright laws, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
-(DMCA) in the USA and the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) in
-the European Union. One of the major features of such laws is to make
-the breaking of copy-protection measures on digital copies illegal.
-Copy-protection is as mentioned above a very difficult thing to
-institute on computers, whose basic design is to copy data. As such
-the recording industry found that any copy protection scheme they
-added to their copies was quickly dismantled, so they turned instead
-to the courts in an attempt to dissuade people from breaking the
-protection measures. These too appear to have done little to stop the
-breaking of copy-protection, but have further incensed and solidified
-many against the recording industry and their lobbyists.
-
-In their public statements recording industry bodies have repeatedly
-appealed to the need to buy copies only from publishers, as otherwise
-musicians can not be paid. Leaving aside debates about the percentage
-of profits which major record publishers pass on to their musicians,
-in repeatedly justifying their position as enabling musicians to be
-paid they strongly implied that no other business model was possible.
-Therefore, the argument went, if one wanted a society with full-time
-musicians there was no choice but to treat recorded music as a
-commodity and reject filesharing.
-
-Such lack of imagination from the record publishers is not very
-surprising, as conservatism towards new technologies is entirely
-natural, and of course they have a great vested interest in the system
-as it existed before (Mokyr 2002: 220). However a large variety of
-alternative business models have been suggested by others which
-attempt to work with the new features of recorded music on the
-computer network, rather than against them, and as such become more
-profitable the more music is shared (at zero cost). Suggestions
-include various donation / microdonation schemes, embedded
-advertising, and using recordings as a loss-leader for live
-performances and merchandise.
-
-
-Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Adorno and Horkheimer (1972) argued that the 'culture industry'
-represented a major homogenising and pacifying force to culture, thus
-for the first time in history neutralising the power of art to
-"protest against the petrified relations under which people lived"
-(Adorno 1991: 2) and thus ensuring the continuance of the existing
-system of inequality. Moreover, they claimed, the power of the
-industry was inescapable, as it tended to subsume and pacify elements
-of protest and define the frame of cultural discussion, as well as by
-more direct means such as wielding massive top-down power over the
-processes of production and distribution.
-
-The argument follows that the primary role of the culture industry is
-to keep all members of society accepting of the political and economic
-systems of inequality - or at least too apathetic to do anything about
-them. Its role then was largely to facilitate the smooth running of
-other major areas of repression, with which its leaders are intimately
-connected (Adorno & Horkheimer 1972: 4).
-
-However if this were the case one would have expected the 'culture
-industry' to respond very positively to the phenomenon of filesharing,
-as it allowed for the far wider and easier dissemination of the
-normative ideologies embedded within their recordings. After all,
-while such technology makes it easy for any copy of music to be widely
-distributed regardless of source, in practise a significant majority
-of copies available were originally produced by the 'culture
-industry.' (Sterne 2006: 831)
-
-One must therefore conclude that while the wellbeing of the wider
-systems of power may well be an agenda of the culture industry, of
-higher priority is its own profitability.
-
-A point that should be emphasised is the political power which the
-music industry still wields. In being the source for the majority of
-music in a culture, with its inevitable ideological payload, the
-influence the industry has on the minds of listeners is still
-enormously significant, regardless of whether they continue to enjoy a
-monopoly over distribution.
-
-Kopytoff (1986) defines commodity in opposition to the singular.
-Copies of music on a filesharing network could then be considered
-perfect commodities. However using the calculation of exchange value
-based upon the level of sacrifice necessary to acquire a copy one sees
-the exchange value drop to zero, (Zerva 2008: 14) in which case copies
-could be considered to fall well outside of the realm of commodities,
-which at their core are tradeable.
-
-What such definitional confusion flags up is the inappropriateness of
-trying to fit music copying into categories of commodity, which were
-created for items with quite different economic properties. In
-particular, the meaning of exchange - of voluntarily losing access to
-one thing in order to gain access to another - is changed, as in the
-world of the computer network one need not lose access to anything in
-order to gain access to another.
-
-So if exchange value drops to zero for recorded music in the age of
-filesharing, how may one determine relative value? An easy answer is
-to turn instead to use value, that is the value derived by each
-individual of actually listening to the music recording. Obviously
-then values will differ for each listener, which is no problem as
-value-judgements are no longer necessary for successful exchange.
-
-One could then argue, as Sterne suggests (2006: 831), that music
-before recording technologies were available was valued according to
-the effect on an individual upon listening, that is to say on use
-value. As recorded music became easily available, tied up in physical
-items tied to the wider market, music was valued more in terms of
-exchange. And now as filesharing once more removes music from the
-realm of the market by virtue of changing the rules of its exchange,
-focus again is on use value. A somewhat analogous process is claimed
-by proponents of free software, where the process of decommoditisation
-is seen as "more about clearing away a temporary confusion, than it is
-about some strange and amazing departure that's suddenly occurred."
-(Moglen 2007)
-
-One should take care not to overstate the ephemeral nature of digital
-copies of recorded music. Sterne points to the continuance of
-collecting and stockpiling more music than one is able to listen to as
-evidence of a sense of ownership and possession of one's music files,
-in the same was that one does in the case of physical objects.
-(2006: 831-832)
-
-Determining the extent to which the new technology associated with
-filesharing is a factor behind new political ideas is of course
-impossible, but one may usefully discuss the political tendencies
-embedded in the technologies.
-
-Earlier distribution technologies had quite different qualities. For
-example the limited bandwidth available to over-the-air transmissions
-(e.g. radio and television) made the establishment of a governing body
-to decide who could broadcast on which frequency (if at all) quite
-necessary and natural. Decisions about how to make such choices often
-involved money, and as such large entrenched interests had another
-advantage over smaller organisations in doing business and spreading
-their particular viewpoints over the airwaves. The decentralisation
-and allowance for modular growth offered by the internet has
-significantly reduced the need for such a governing body. Of course
-many argue that stronger governance of the internet is important, the
-difference being that it is not necessary to the successful
-functioning of the network as a whole. Recent discussion of laws
-regarding 'network neutrality' however illustrate the limits of such a
-view, as most people connect to the internet via an internet service
-provider, who *could* artificially alter the operation of parts of the
-network to their customers.
-
-Central to general computing, compression technology and computer
-networking has long been the striving for faster copying of anything
-digital, utterly regardless of concepts such as property rights over
-certain digital data. As Sterne puts it "The primary, illegal uses of
-the mp3 are not aberrant uses or an error in the technology; they are
-its highest moral calling ... These are the instructions encoded into
-the very form of the mp3." (2006: 839) However one needs to be careful
-with such statements, as they tend to carry an air of technological
-determinism which denies individuals agency and ignores instances of
-difference.
-
-When disembodied from their physical forms and instead made to take
-digital forms, ideas of copyright and commodity have often been
-questioned. The first industry to be exposed to the power of computer
-networks as a distribution and indeed creation channel was computer
-programming, which was the sphere in which the radical take of
-copyright 'copyleft' (see above) was envisioned. The place of software
-was reconsidered and concluded not to lie in the commodity realm, but
-somewhere quite different: "The technological information about the
-terms on which we and the 'digital brains' exist: that's not a
-product. That's a culture." (Moglen 2007)
-
-In many quarters the same is now being said about music, and the place
-of the record publishing industry is being recast by those engaged in
-file-sharing, from the purveyors of culture to an entity which seeks
-to profit by restricting access to a shared culture.
-
-
-Works Cited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-- Adorno, T (1991) 'Culture Industry Reconsidered' The Culture
-  Industry: selected essays on mass culture (Adorno, T), London: Routledge
-- Adorno, T & Horkheimer, M (1972) 'The Culture Industry:
-  enlightenment as mass deception' Dialectic of Enlightenment (ed.
-  Adorno, T & Horkheimer, M), New York: Continuum
-- Benjamin, W (1936) 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
-  Reproduction' Illuminations (Benjamin, W) London: Pimlico
-- Barbrook, R (1998) [The Hi-Tech Gift Economy](http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/631/552),
-  First Monday 3: 12
-- Kopytoff, I (1986) 'The Cultural Biography of Things:
-  Commoditization as Process' The Social Life of Things
-  (ed. Appadurai, A), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
-- Moglen, E (2001) [Liberation Musicology](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010312/moglen),
-  The Nation: March 12
-- Moglen, E (2007) [How I discovered Free Software and met RMS](http://www.linux.com/feature/114303),
-  Linux.com interview
-- Mokyr, J (2002) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the
-  Knowledge Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press
-- Sterne, J (2006) The mp3 as cultural artifact, New Media & Society,
-  California: Sage
-- Williams, S (2002) Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for
-  Free Software, California: O'Reilly Media
-- Zerva, K (2008) File-Sharing versus Gift-Giving: a Theoretical
-  Approach, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Internet
-  and Web Applications and Services
diff --git a/pubs/index.ttl b/pubs/index.ttl
deleted file mode 100644
index 889fa28..0000000
--- a/pubs/index.ttl
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
-@prefix rdf:  <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
-@prefix bibo: <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/>.
-@prefix dc:   <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>.
-
-<http://njw.me.uk/pubs/consent> a bibo:Article;
-    dc:title "Issues of consent in human-animal sexual relations";
-    dc:date "2008";
-    dc:isPartOf <urn:issn:17552273>;
-    dc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>;
-    bibo:status <bibo:status/forthcoming>;
-    dc:creator <http://njw.me.uk/card#i>.
-
-<http://njw.me.uk/pubs/copyme> a bibo:Article;
-    dc:title "Technological change and the consumption of music";
-    dc:date "2010";
-    dc:isPartOf <urn:issn:20411405>;
-    bibo:volume "1";
-    bibo:issue "1";
-    dc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>;
-    dc:creator <http://njw.me.uk/card#i>.
-
-<urn:issn:20411405> a bibo:Periodical;
-    dc:title "Anthropology Reviews: Dissent and Cultural Politics";
-    bibo:uri "http://www.ebslondon.ac.uk/ICES/research/publications/anthropology_journal.aspx".
-
-<urn:issn:17552273> a bibo:Periodical;
-    dc:title "Learning and Teaching (LATISS)";
-    bibo:uri "http://www.berghahnbooks.com/journals/ltss/".