Last night I watched the DVD, Glastonbury: The Mud. The Music. The Madness, which provides an historical perspective to the Glastonbury music festival.
To begin with I found the film to be purely entertaining but around half way through I began to identify a number of parallels between the historical events and conditions of the festival and many of those experienced by music, artists and the public in the digital environment. All analogies break down on examination but if you care to take a step back for a minute, often the easiest way to understand a situation and to resolve problems is by finding something that is similar and making comparisons as to how issues were resolved in that context. Some aspects of this provided such an opportunity with others serving to contrast the difference between tangibles and intangibles. I would like to discuss some of the highlights of the film as a metaphor for issues we can see presently in the regulation of music in cyberspace. In doing so I should acknowledge that this post will not provide a description of the film so those that are interested should try to see it themselves.
The benefits and limitations of open spaces
What immediately struck me about the region in which this festival was held was that it could be seen as an analogy for the intellectual commons. The festival began with no formal boundaries but rather was located in an open space with the pre-existing contours of the land acting to facilitate the logistics of coordinating and accommodating festival goers. Over a period of time, with ever increasing numbers attending, an increase in the financial expenditure to run the event and conflicts with members of the public, the organisers sought to enclose an area of the commons for the private interests of those that attended.
In the terms of Peter Drahos this would amount to an exclusive, negative community. This characterisations includes the notions that a limited number of people enjoy the rights to deal with the resources (exclusive) and those outside the arrangements must negotiate for access (negative); in turn this means that there are those that do not immediately have access and will not be entitled to enjoy the resources of the commons (or in this case that specific area of the region).
A further obvious issue with the festival operating in an open space is the notion of risk. In many years the weather has interrupted and caused problems for the festival. In particular, the flooding of large areas of the property resulted in both poor conditions for those in attendance as well as impacting on the numbers attending in following years.
In cyberspace whilst there is an essential and vital need for openness it is reasonable to suggest that this comes with some associated risks. Some would suggest that this risk compels the closing of the space to provide assurance and security for those seeking to use the digital environment. However this position fails to address the far greater need to ensure freedom of innovation, free speech, free culture and democracy. The better course of action is undoubtedly to teach the public about the risks, to provide them with the means to either avoid or overcome their impact and to retain the many essential positive aspects of an open environment. For the festival this was achieved by some alteration to the drainage system and most likely an increase in public awareness has resulted in those attending being more prepared for the possibility of poor weather rather than not attending at all.
The conflict and contrast between main stream and alternative culture
The Glastonbury festival is easily characterised as an alternative music festival with many festival-goers dressing in costumes or colourful clothing and an acceptance of those who choose to go naked. There is also a reasonable level of drug use, a lot of alternative music, support for left wing political views and charitable organisations that work towards issues of this nature, alternative forms of entertainment and many other factors that contribute to this characterisation.
In contrast the film shows many of the local residents expressing resistance to the festival. Some shops had signs up to the effect that they would not serve festival goers, with others openly confronting attendees and suggesting that as the festival was not within the culture of the towns’ residents that they had become a minority in their own environment. They also expressed concern at the environmental impact on the natural resources. In one year festival goers also marched through the town protesting heavy and invasive policing practices which further reflect mainstream culture.
A similar level of conflict is apparent in cyberspace with the threat of lawsuits against peer to peer software developers, operators and users, being one form of regulation designed to reinforce the pre-existing culture, namely major record label artists. The impact of this is to reduce the availability of alternative distribution methods for independent artists seeking to gain greater exposure to the public. Organisations such as Creative Commons, Electronic Frontiers Foundation and the Future of Music Coalition all work in some ways to support the continuance of these architectures for the benefit of independent artists and the public. This could be seen as a parallel to the street march and an expression of the need to maintain diversity.
The tragedy of the commons
Hardin’s theory of the tragedy of the commons is something more specific to tangible property and relates to the idea that there are too many people allowed to use the resources of the commons. Whilst not specifically relevant to intangibles, which of course are infinite goods that cannot be exhausted, the notion was nonetheless apparent within this film. Here there were two commons that can be identified as being over used. The first of these was the natural resources of the region particularly the waterways that went through the property and on to other people’s land. Residents complained of the pollution of these by festival goers as many used these instead of the allocated toilets and did not dispose of their garbage properly. One scene in the film shows a man protesting about the number of toilets made available to the attendees and discussion is directed to the license conditions of the festivals organisers and the need for people to use the facilities provided.
The second was the sub commons that was created by fencing off of the section of land for the festival. Despite constant attempts to improve the security (CCTV) and fencing to prevent others from entering the festival without paying, repeatedly the numbers of festival goers appear to have been beyond that desired and catered for by the organisers. In 2000 a significant part of the fence collapsed and around 300,000 people ended up having access to the festival.
Articles/Links:
Wikipedia, Glastonbury Festival (16 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_Festival> at 17 April 2008
Wikipedia, Glastonbury (14 September 2007)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_%28film%29 > at 18 April 2008
Wikipedia, The Left Field (14 June 2007) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Field> at 18 April 2008
Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (1996)
<http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Intellectual-Property-Applied-Legal/dp/1855212404/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208533734&sr=1-2>
Creative Commons
<http://creativecommons.org/> at 19 April 2008
Electronic Frontiers Foundation
<http://www.eff.org/> at 19 April 2008
Future of Music Coalition
<http://www.futureofmusic.org/> at 19 April 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment