diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'writing')
| -rw-r--r-- | writing/consent.txt | 273 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | writing/copyme.txt | 485 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | writing/index.ttl | 28 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | writing/makevideo.txt | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | writing/unburn.txt | 76 |
5 files changed, 866 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/writing/consent.txt b/writing/consent.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dd93d19 --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/consent.txt @@ -0,0 +1,273 @@ +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/writing/copyme.txt b/writing/copyme.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aef4cc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/copyme.txt @@ -0,0 +1,485 @@ +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/writing/index.ttl b/writing/index.ttl new file mode 100644 index 0000000..889fa28 --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/index.ttl @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +@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/". diff --git a/writing/makevideo.txt b/writing/makevideo.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3f882c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/makevideo.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +make video +======================================================================= + +### Video editing using make, ffmpeg and imagemagick diff --git a/writing/unburn.txt b/writing/unburn.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9fdd9ab --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/unburn.txt @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Unburn +======================================================================= + +### How and why to eschew feedburner + +Feedburner is fucked up. It is a way of proxying feeds through their +centralised service for purposes of surveillance and advertising. It +is owned and operated by Google, so it's very likely that the data +collected about your reading habits is linked with the existing profile +Google has on you. + +## Background + +Feeds are not supposed to be like this. The web is not supposed to be +like this. The web is decentralised. Feeds make it easy to quickly +collect information from many different places together. + +The decentralisation of the web makes it difficult for someone to +find out all of the different websites you visit (except by +internet service providers and those with influence over them, +though this can be defeated using [Tor](https://www.torproject.org).) +This makes practical surveillance of your reading habits difficult. +Decentralisation also creates a resiliant infrastructure which is very +difficult to censor. + +## The problem + +Feedburner seeks to disrupt this in the name of profit. It offers +website owners a way of sending all requests for their feeds through +a central website. In exchange they offer website owners the ability +to inject advertising into feeds and view more information about the +readers of their website. Feedburner collect and analyse information +about each readers' habits, which they use to better divert readers +attention to the commercial, either directly through their own +adverts, or by selling detailed reader profiles to anybody +willing to pay. + +To summarise; feedburner surveils your reading habits, sharing them +with anyone powerful enough to pay, undermines the censorship +resistant infrastructure of the web, and interrupts your reading +with adverts. + +## The solution + +Fortunately it is quite easy to defeat the redirects to feedburner. + +Firstly though we need to find out which feeds are redirected through +feedburner. This script will print any url from the file 'urls' which +currently goes through feedburner: + + #!/bin/sh + urlfile=urls + sed -e '/^#/d' -e '/^$/d' < $urlfile | awk '{print $1}' \ + | while read u; do + fb=`curl -s -I $u | grep -c feedburner` + test $fb -gt 0 && echo $u needs unburning + done + +Now you know the feeds to deal with, you can go ahead and unburn them. + +The key is to claim to be feedburner to the website, and it will +dutifully let you through to the real feeds. Do this by setting the +User-Agent string to 'feedburner' in your HTTP request. + +If using a newsreader which supports Snownews extensions, this is easy +to integrate. Create a simple shell script called unburn.sh: + + !#/bin/sh + curl -s -A 'feedburner' "$1"` + +Then replace the url entry in your newsreader with +`"exec:sh unburn.sh http://feedurl/"` + +Other newsreaders will have different procedures, but the same +principle applies; just set the User-Agent header string to +'feedburner'. |