diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'publications')
| -rw-r--r-- | publications/2008-consent.txt | 273 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | publications/2009-copyme.txt | 485 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | publications/index.ttl | 28 |
3 files changed, 0 insertions, 786 deletions
diff --git a/publications/2008-consent.txt b/publications/2008-consent.txt deleted file mode 100644 index dd93d19..0000000 --- a/publications/2008-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/publications/2009-copyme.txt b/publications/2009-copyme.txt deleted file mode 100644 index aef4cc4..0000000 --- a/publications/2009-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/publications/index.ttl b/publications/index.ttl deleted file mode 100644 index 07f0238..0000000 --- a/publications/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/>. -@prefix cc: <http://creativecommons.org/ns#>. - -<http://njw.me.uk/publications/2008-consent> a bibo:Article; - dc:title "Issues of consent in human-animal sexual relations"; - dc:date "2008"; - dc:isPartOf <urn:issn:17552273>; - cc: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/publications/2009-copyme> a bibo:Article; - dc:title "Technological change and the consumption of music"; - dc:date "2009"; - dc:isPartOf <urn:issn:20411405>; - cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>; - bibo:status <bibo:status/forthcoming>; - 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/". |