Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

ABS: Arts and Culture in Australia Statistical Overview 2011

Recently the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their statistical over view of arts and culture in Australia for 2011 which actually covers the period of 2009 to 2010. Some interesting points from the report include:

  • Overall Australian households spent 4% of their overall expenditure on cultural goods and services
  • In total $402.9 million was spent on recorded music
  • In total $827.6 million was spent on concert fees and charges
  • Exports of cultural goods in 2009-10 totalled $539.8m, or 0.3% of all goods exported from Australia, while cultural imports totalled $2,436.6m, or 1.2% of all goods imported into Australia
  • Total music sales in Australia for the year ending 31st December 2009 were $446,112,000. $366,868,000 was made on physical products and just $79,244,000 was made on digital products.

Further Reading

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4172.0 - Arts and Culture in Australia: A Statistical Overview, 2011 (19 December 2012) < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/E8C6AA6F556D72EBCA257968000CB1E0?opendocument> at 22 February 2012

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind

I have been catching up on more reading this week - James Boyle's 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' has been sitting in my reading tray for about 3 years and I was delighted to have an opportunity this week to take a look at it.

The central point of the book is that 'the line between intellectual property and the public domain is important in every aspect of culture, science and technology.' [pg xvi] Boyle begins by discussing the inherent aspects of intellectual property - that it is nonrival and nonexcludable and notes that financial reward is just one of the motivations behind creation - others are fame, altruism or because of another inherent creative force. [pg 3] Without limiting intellectual property rights, it becomes a system of corporate welfare. [pg 8] He writes:

'...the goal of the system ought to be to give the monopoly only for as long as necessary to provide incentive. After that, we should let the work fall into the public domain where all of us can use it, transform it, adapt it, build on it, republish it as we wish. For most works, the owners expect to make all the money the are going to recoup from the work with five or ten years of exclusive rights' [pg 11]

He discusses changes to copyright in recent years including automatic protection and term extension and notes that these have changed the contours of copyright regulation in a bad way. [pg 15].

Boyle terms the phrase 'The Jefferson Warning' to refer to the discussion of intellectual property at the time of its inception and the reluctance of the forefathers in granting monopoly rights. In essence intellectual property was not seen as a natural right rather a mechanism to create incentives, there is no entitlement as such to monopoly rights rather they are created by the State as a means to an end, they should not be permanent but rather only last as long as is needed to provide the incentive they set out to achieve, there are inherent dangers associated with intellectual property rights as they may cause more problems than they solve and the State must be careful to only award them when they are really needed. [pg 21-22] These sentiments were echoed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech to the House of Commons in 1841:

'I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad.' [pg 22]

Reiterated by Boyle later in the text, he rephrases this to say that the concerns of the forefathers were that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity, high prices and low quality. [pg 37]

Boyle goes on to define the public domain and the commons:

'The public domain is material that is not covered by intellectual property rights. Material might be in the public domain because it was never capable of being owned. Examples would be the English language or the formulae of Newtonian physics. Alternatively, something might be in the public domain because rights have expired. The works of Shakespeare or the patents over powered flight are examples.
Some definitions of the public domain are more granular. They focus not only on complete works but on the reserved spaces of freedom inside intellectual property. The public domain would include the privilege to excerpt short quotations in a review. This vision is messier, but more instructive....' [pg 38]

'The term "commons" is generally used to denote a resource over which some group has access and use rights - albeit perhaps under certain conditions. It is used in even more ways that the term "public domain". The first axis along which definitions of the term "commons" vary is the size of the group that has access rights. Some would say it is a commons only if the whole society has access. That is the view I will take here.
The other difference between public domain and commons is the extent of restrictions on use. Material in the public domain is free of property rights. You may do with it what you wish. A commons can be restrictive. For example, some open source software makes your freedom to modify the software contingent on the conditions that your contributions, too, will be freely open to others.' [pg 39]

Boyle sees the public domain as important because it is the basis of art, science and self understanding. It is the raw material from which new things are made. [pg 39] He states that the more commodified and restricted our access to information, the less the market operates efficiently and more poorly it allocates resources in society. Creativity is undermined as the cost of the inputs rise. [pg 40]

Boyle then goes on to discuss the enclosure of land commons in England before referring to the increase in intellectual property rights as the second enclosure. [pg 43 -45] Here Hardin's tragedy of the commons does not apply as works are non rivalrous and nonexcludable. [pg 48] Indeed the increase in property rights creates a different problem:

'Using a nice inversion of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, Heller and Eisenberg referred to these effects - the transaction costs caused by myriad property rights over the necessary components of some subsequent innovation - as the tragedy of the anti commons'.

Boyle then goes on to term the phrase 'The Internet Threat' to refer to the digital environment and perceptions that technological changes empowering copying must mean an increase in property rights. [pg 53] In particular he refers to Napster and the changes that were brought about by file sharing. [pg 53] The logic of perfect control is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [pg 61] The background to the Napster and Grokster litigation is also discussed. [see pg 71 - 79]

Chapter 6 discusses mashups in detail. In an earlier post here I embedded the YouTube clip to The Legendary KO's song 'George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People'. This is a fascinating chapter which traces the origins of that mashup and discusses the copyright implications for its reuse over time - this is a great example for anyone interested in the origins of mashups and the law around them. [pg 122] In discussing changes that need to be made to the law to allow for mashups Boyle states that one solution is to extend the system of compulsory licenses for cover versions to samples, or in the alternative, to exempt samples shorter than 5 seconds from copyright liability and clarify fair use. [pg 158-159]

Chapter 7 concerns the science commons with particular examples of software patents and synthetic biology. [pg 160]

Chapter 8 focuses on the creative commons and looks at flickr, ccmixter and creative commons [pg 179-181]. Boyle states that losses of sharing are every bit as real as losses from unauthorised copying. [pg 182] Further discussion on this topic looks to the free software movement and how creation of software takes place on a large scale despite a lower level of intellectual property rights. [pg 185]

In Boyle's eyes copyright maximalism was believed and pursued even when it did not make economic sense. [pg 198] It was a creation of a world view not a calculation of profit and loss:

'Not only did many of the rules we ended up with make no sense from the point of view of some of the largest economic players in the area - think of the device manufacturers, the search engines, and so on - they frequently made no sense from the perspective of those proposing them. Attempting to twist the law to make it illegal for technology to interfere with your business model is frequently bad for the industry seeking the protection, as well as for the technology, the markets, and the wider society.'
[pg 199]

It was however a sincere belief that more rights would lead to more innovation. [pg 199]

Boyle is particularly critical of the lack of empirical evidence used to support changes in the law with a look at the legal protection for databases in the USA compared to Europe as one example. [pg 205 - 220]

Finally, Boyle proposes a movement along the lines of the environmental movement to lobby for changes to intellectual property law. [pg 230]

An excellent summary of the main points of the book is given on pages 205 & 236.

This is a brilliant book and very easy to read I really do recommend taking the time to look at it.

Further Reading
James Boyle, 'The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind' (2008) available for free at: < http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/> at 13 September 2011

Monday, June 28, 2010

Relationship Break Up – The Herd

I am a little sad this morning because I have broken up with The Herd. Much like a relationship with a boyfriend, we just don’t talk like we used to and now we are parting ways – hu, I hear you say?

Last week there was a dramatic day in Australian politics with Julia Gillard ousting Kevin Rudd as Australia’s Prime Minister. I was, like many, caught out, not expecting the change to come so soon. Then this morning while walking I was excited to listen to The Herd, only to realise very soon that we were actually breaking up. The last album from The Herd, an Australian political hip-hop group, has two songs in particular that I loved when they were first released. The songs 2020 and The King is Dead refer to the magical moment in Australian political history when the former Prime Minister John Howard was defeated in the 2007 election by Kevin Rudd. How the words resonated with me – “Crook you got your ass played in Mandarin” were only tempered with “Keep your eye on the new kid, ...we knew where Johnny stood, where’s Kevin?”. But today the words were that little bit more hollow as I realised that the songs have now dated. This is the end of their relevance and their shift to the past, like a relationship that has ended with just the photographs to reminisce with. Perhaps I should eat some chocolate?

Political music is commonly grouped into two forms, the narrative and the anthem. Narratives more commonly relate to specific events and while they can take some time to develop they are nonetheless considered to have a limited scope and relevance. Often depicting a broader social issue, for example Bob Dylan’s Hurricane, they nonetheless tell a story that is specific in time. For this reason they may be more easily characterised as a summer romance. We are far less likely to expect them to resonate with us for an extended period of time.

Anthems on the other hand can be either specific or general. I consider The Herds songs to be more specific than other songs, for example Edwin Starr’s ‘War’ (‘What is it Good For’). But our relationships with anthems tend to be more passionate as they drive a sense of inclusion and celebration – a sense of unity and purpose. Like a relationship that suddenly ends, those based on politics have a limited life span but without a loss at an election, the ending is sudden and unexpected. Its not me – its them!

There are of course songs which overlap these categories and are far less easily determined but one good example in this case is the song From Little Things Big Things Grow – a song which samples a lot of the speech to the stolen generation by Kevin Rudd in one of his most positive contributions to Australian history – the apology in which he said sorry for the removal of Indigenous children from their families under the White Australia Policy. Here the song tells the story of the apology but in an anthem style implores Australians to see this as a new beginning. The song is specific in nature in so much that it relates to the apology itself but unlike The Herd songs which relate to Rudd’s election, here the song relates specifically to his speech and indeed samples another former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating. While I adore this song, it was dated from the moment it was released.

The limited life span of more specific anthems is something that appears to bring an emotional disturbance with it. I was really aware of how the John Butler Trio’s song, The Gov Did Nothing, which is about Hurricane Katrina, really missed its purpose because it was released so long after the events. And today I am again reminded of the limited life span of the more specific anthem. While the songs by The Herd do more commonly celebrate the end of Howard holding office, the other side of this was inevitably the celebration of Kevin Rudd as a more suitable and compassionate leader.

I have to admit to being polygamist here though – I am in a long term relationship with my Obama songs and will ddefinitely cry the day they are not longer relevant. The up side I suppose is the anticipation of new music, I hope Australian political artists are ready to celebrate the first female Prime Minister in Australian history and hope that there is a rush to the first song that samples or includes Julia – it would be a testament to the Australian feminist movement to see a song released that commemorates this amazing event.

So as a I lament the loss of a relationship and the loss of music from the present to the past, I hold hope that a new relationship is about to start and will try my hardest to always think of The Herd as being relevant in an historical sense. I still love them, its just that we’ve grown apart, at least for now.

Afterword
I just sat down to a cup of tea only to hear 'Ghostwriters - Political Animal' and wish to dedicate this song to Kevin Rudd - "politics is fine, if you want to wreck your life".

Sunday, May 17, 2009

MashUps and the Reuse of Music

Mashups are a form of culture which take small pieces of pre-existing songs and blend them together to make something new. Perhaps the most well known artists in this field are Girl Talk and DJ Danger Mouse.

This form of culture has developed from rap and hip hop music which has traditionally used repetitive samples as additional parts in new songs. Samples themselves have long been part of our oral tradition. Indeed in everyday language we sample speech from each other through the use of catch phrases. The more recent composition method of mashups, have a tendency to include no new parts to the composition rather bleeding together material from a range of other sources.

The first time I ever experienced a mashup was in an interview with Professor Lawrence Lessig (formerly of Stanford University and now with Harvard University) in the film Good Copy Bad Copy that featured Bush and Blair footage cut to sit with the song Endless Love. This was a film clip about the close relationship between the USA and the UK on foreign policy. But to Lessig the clip also demonstrated the malleability of digital culture and the ability of old material to be used in a way that comments on new situations or events.

But what of music?

There has always been some resuse of music – most typically bands have played songs that others have already composed and released – those that do only this are commonly referred to as cover bands. These bands often offer a new interpretation of the song and sometimes play it in a new style. In other examples of the resuse of music, slightly more adaption takes place – one recent example are the artists Santagold and Diblo who adapted the Clash’s Guns of Brixton and released a version titled ‘The Guns of Brooklyn’. The original song reflected on the socio economic and social conditions of African immigrants in the UK and the intention of the derivative released by Santagold and Diblo was to further comment on the socio economic and social conditions of African Americans.

The cultural benefits of reusing music are profound. Culture allows us to see the world, to express the demands and events that take place in it and allows us to imagine and create a better future. Music that has a pre-existing association with social events and conditions that is then relocated from the past into new circumstances, allows audiences to make an immediate connection between the two spaces in time. The public are able to relive old sentiments, memories are triggered, feelings and emotions of an era past return and the perspective they had at that time can be used to view the contemporary world. The music is re-contextualised.

One example of this is DJ Danger Mouse’s The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z’s Black album and The Beatle’s White album which was distributed over file sharing networks. Whilst not sued, the artist, DJ Dangermouse, was threatened and sites hosting the file were subjected to take down notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Despite the efforts of the copyright holders, the tracks were quickly spread by internet users and a civil disobedience campaign launched to protest the inability of artists to remix music. The mashup itself was a form of political expression reflecting the need for racial harmony.

The institutional mechanisms of society, particularly law which is supported by capitalism, have not readily adapted to new forms of culture. While most forms of copyright legislation provide compulsory licensing mechanisms for cover songs, there are varying degrees and certainty to which samples can be used without a license under the protection of fair use/fair dealing. Typically licensing agreements are required which are expensive and take long periods of time to secure. In protest of the current state of the law a German Avant Guarde musician, Johannes Kriedler mashed 70,200 songs in 33 seconds, completed the necessary paper work and delivered it to the German Music Rights Organisation, GEMA.

In his text Remix Lessig notes that digital technologies have seen a move away from a Read Only culture to a Read Write culture where anyone is able to use cultural expression and mash it into new forms. Lessig suggests that there is a generational difference in the way in which culture is viewed with the older ‘couch potato’ generation unable to appreciate the need or desire of the younger generations to access and recreate existing works. We must be active in ensuring that the law catches up to technology, embraces new, transformative, cultural forms and does not inhibit their growth.

More Information

MySpace, Girl Talk (2009) <http://www.myspace.com/girltalk>at 17 May 2009

YouTube, Bush Blair Endless Love (12 April 2006) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nupdcGwIG-g> at 17 May 2009

Imeem, The Grey Video by DJ Danger Mouse vs. Jay-Z vs. The Beatles (2009) <http://www.imeem.com/systim/video/Z0ejz5RQ/dj-danger-mouse-vs-jay-z-vs-the-beatles-the-grey-video-mus/> at 17 May 2009

You Tube, Santogold - Guns Of Brooklyn <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhGjGuzpSA> at 17 May 2009

Wikipedia, The Grey Album (20 February 2008)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album> at 22 April 2008

P2p Blog, Musician mashes up 70,200 songs, delivers lists to rights holders by the truck load (21 August 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-826.html> at 17 May 2009

Good Copy Bad Copy <http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/> at 22 April 2008

Wikipedia, Good Copy Bad Copy (30 March 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Copy_Bad_Copy> at 22 April 2008

OCA Research Review, Remix (27 October 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/10/remix-lessig.html> at 17 May 2009

OCA Research Review, In the Matter of Mashups (2 September 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/09/in-matter-of-mashups.html> at 17 May 2009

Spaces and Places.

Last night I had a very enjoyable dinner with friends at the 20,000 Cows Restaurant in Lismore, NSW and thought to write a little about the analogy between this place and the current space for political music.

20,000 Cows is a quaint little restaurant outside of the CBD. It is housed in an old petrol station with an odd, triangular shaped, small building and a small court yard. Inside the walls are decorated with a range of unique and hand made art works, the curtains are all different colours, there are lanterns, candles on the table and a collection of odd pieces of furniture. There is a potbelly stove made out of an old beer keg, panels of melted glass and a book on Ghandi on the wall.

The food which is absolutely beautiful is Middle Eastern and Indian vegan/vegetarian and the philosophy of the proprietor, Murray Vilkelis, is based on animal rights and respect for other living beings. Some people eat around coffee tables while sitting on lounges, others at tables with mismatching chairs.

The atmosphere is fantastic – there are people from all backgrounds including those from non mainstream and mainstream cultures. It serves as a meeting place for many that appreciate the ideological basis of the ‘business’ and it serves as a place where people from outside that culture can be comfortable and become accustom to alternative approaches.

I say ideological basis of the ‘business’ because while there are recommended prices, these are optional –the menu states that these are suggested prices.

It was a great evening and I will be certain to return many more times however it was not without its hiccups. It was very busy with a Gem Festival nearby attracting a large number of people, this led to some cramping with people squashed together in small spaces and the high demand on the staff led to some delays in service and some confusion about meals.

This was really of a secondary concern to my friends and I, and I only raise it because I was thinking at the time what a great analogy this place was for the current space of political music in the digital environment.

Political music is unique and at present it suffers from a small area in which to thrive. The artists congregate in what little architecture is available to them which is beneficial because of its intimacy and concentration, however the spaces have not grown to accommodate new creators, they have not expanded enough to house everyone comfortably and in a way that provides the greatest level of service. The distribution system (serving staff) are limited in effectiveness because of the lack of expansion and money to do more.

The business appears to be worthwhile from an economic perspective however I was not the one to pay the bill so I cannot say from personal experience whether social norms are enough to ensure that the costs are covered. At a guess I would say that most people that go there are ethically motivated enough to pay the recommended price but am sure that on occasion those that can’t don’t, and sometimes those that can, do not either. The generosity of the proprietor is both what attracts people to try new experiences but at the same time does not of itself ensure or guarantee that the business will continue without financial concerns. As I have noted recently, Trent Reznor estimates that only around 18% of consumers paid to access his bands music when a similar business model was used.

The ideological basis of the restaurant is both an attraction to those that appreciate alternative perspectives, catering (pun intended) to their desire for integtrity and respect. For others, perhaps it is something that does the opposite. It is the same for political music - not everyone who is exposed to it goes on to appreciate its true value.

I didn’t get to eat all that I ordered and some friends ate another person’s meal because of the lack of resources (serving staff per customer) – this is a direct parallel to those of us that want more political music but cannot find it.

There were delays in getting our meals (lack of cooks = lack of artists) but the uniqueness of the food was worth waiting for – it takes time to prepare something that is not generic and mass produced.

And there were things that were not welcome, such as the consumption of meat from other sources on the premises and smoking – this relates to the notion that non dedicated spaces for political expression dilute its potency and ability to get its message across.

As I said, it was a wonderful and very enjoyable evening – we all had a great time and please don’t take this as a criticism of the restaurant. This is merely me being observational and using a real space example as an illustration of what is taking place on the internet.

I had been to this restaurant some 10 or more years ago and never saw it in this way. If you ever have the chance, go, and see for yourself how special cultures express themselves and think a little of how much better the world would be if there were more chances for it to do so.

More Information

Wolf & Lamb, Wolf and Lamb: Animal Free Cooking (7th ed, 2002) <http://lis.net.au/marijonas/WOLF01.html#F200> at 17 May 2009

Your Restaurant, 20,000 Cows (2009)
<http://www.yourrestaurants.com.au/guide/20000_cows/> at 17 May 2009

Friday, May 15, 2009

The Importance of Political Music.

As I start to condense some 8,500 words into four pages for my IASPM presentation I have been thinking a lot about the relative importance of political music. As you should know by now, my doctorate concerns the conditions that will ensure it’s production and reception in the digital environment and maximising the opportunities for it to act as an agent of social change. However in recent times it has become apparent that while this is a noble and valuable pursuit, it takes place in a world that in fact needs many forms of culture including those that I have tended to refer to as ‘superficial’ or ‘distracting’.

Someone asked me recently what music has had the most impact on my life and in answering, I, without hesitating, said that the most obvious music has been that with a strong message about personal strength and courage. Even last week, in the process of confronting some personal challenges, I walked around with a Britney Spears song in my head with the lyrics ‘I’m stronger than yesterday’. Yet in my intellectual pursuits I have typically distanced myself from this form of culture. Indeed there are many moments in my life when I have turned to non political music for comfort, support and fun. Just today I tried to purchase the new Hilltop Hoods CD. It has not been released yet, but the intention was to use it as a new form of escapism – to listen to something that I could enjoy but not on a purely intellectual level. [I will not download it but am cursing the fact that I can hear it on the radio but not purchase it for another month! Damn those release dates.]

As a politically aware person it can be hard for me to actually indentify the impact this form of culture has had on me – since becoming heavily immersed in the study of these types of songs I have made some changes to my personal behaviour including taking greater responsibility for the environment (buying carbon credits when I could, being more diligent about recycling, walking rather than driving when I can), being more aware of and more compassionate for the disadvantaged and marginalised and more in tune with the political events that are taking place in the world. But when the impact is micro not macro, it can be more subtle and difficult to see. Aside from the internet censorship campaign in Australia I cannot claim to have become more overtly involved in politics. Nonetheless the changes are there and the music has certainly been part of making that happen.

But political music is just one form of culture that has produced changes in my personal behaviour and approach to life. When I want to dance (much to the world’s regret) I listen to dance music, techno and hip hop. When I am feeling down I listen to music that has an uplifting message – one of my favourites is Bob Marley’s ‘Three Little Birds’. When I want to relax I listen to classical music or instrumental works (I would not be here today without Deep Forest). And so it becomes clear to me that in my enthusiasm for advocating the conditions for protest music that perhaps I am guilty of being dogmatic. There is a time and a place for all forms of culture – just so long as I am not the only one that remembers that.

Some are aware of my lack of appreciation for organised sports, indeed I commonly refer to football as a form of distraction. Having grown up in a city that stops for sport I became very frustrated by what I considered to be the distraction of the masses. Why, I would ask, do people devote so much time and energy to watching a group of men run around, often in the rain, after a piece of stuffed leather when so much of the world is in a state of crisis? And as a parallel I become frustrated with people that listen only to superficial and distracting music (not that those terms are appropriate). Indeed it is not the football game or the culture of football that I disagree with; it is not the love songs and the dance songs themselves that I don’t appreciate; it is a world which does not allow space for more that bothers me.

One perspective is that people devote themselves to football or listen to music that ‘entertains’ rather than ‘educates’ because they need to. The world is in a state of crisis, but so are many people in their day to day lives. Even if they are not in crisis as such, then they are under pressure from other places whether that be in the workplace, economic, from society itself, from their friends or family or a number of other sources, and they need an outlet. They need to express their feelings and be part of something that does not place demands on them and provides them with a sense of community and security. Political music can do this to a certain extent but it has another motive as well. Popular music which speaks of emotions and which creates a sense of fun and enjoyment does not place people under these demands; it simply allows people to feel.

I was asked recently what I would do to address some of the issues with disadvantaged youth and my answer was immerse them in music and I was clear that it did not matter what type of music or what involvement they had – whether that be to learn an instrument, play in a band, be a radio presenter, go to concerts or just download and share with their friends as much music as they could. The reason for this is two fold. Firstly much of the problems associated with kids stems from their use of time. If they are busy they are far less likely to get into trouble. The second part to this is that music is an outlet – it is a form of expression that is universal (second perhaps only to the smile) it is something that they can share with others and have fun with in the process. It can help them to overcome their personal difficulties, help them to rationalise the world and help them to stay on track.

And so I need to change my approach – political music is important but it is not more important, it is just as important. Without the emotional, without the physical, we are not capable of the intellectual.

One of the sentences in my IASPM paper that I may need to reword to be more diplomatic suggests that emotive and dance music will be produced under almost any conditions because the social function is so well engrained and so well established. Perhaps this is true but only to a certain degree. Just like political music, there remains conditions under which better emotive and dance music will be created. A professional sector of creators needs to be sustained not just to challenge the status quo on a macro level but to ensure that individuals on a micro level have the peace of mind and strength to get over their personal challenges, to enjoy life and can be in a position to contribute to the wider social issues of our time.

I accept that we cannot have one unless we have the other. They are interconnected and not separate. What happens to one effects/affects the other.

Forgive me for just focussing on the political. From now on I will do so in a less dismissive way.

In the digital environment, just as in real space, we suffer from noise. Life is a constant process of clustering and filtering. Trying to group things together and sort them from others. Unlike popular music which already has many architectures and spaces in which this can occur, much more needs to be done to ensure that political music too has a space. It has not gone unnoticed to me that my local club has started to play a lot more political music. As someone who has already been exposed to this, consumes it and uses it, the reception is welcome. But it is partly ineffective for others. While they might hear it and sometimes even recognise it, they cannot connect with it on a level that converts that exposure all the way through to use. There needs to be a forum. There needs to be space and it needs to be appropriate to be effective.

In the digital environment we have the space for the popular, now it is time to create the space for the political.


__________________

I have three phrases I use to describe my learning process. There are the ‘book ends’ where I find the start and the end that hold the middle together. There is the perfect circle, where I can trace something to find its holistic presence. This is what I would call a ‘corner’ because it changes my direction. I have turned it. Thank you.

Monday, October 27, 2008

REMIX: Lessig

I have just finished reading the book REMIX by Lawrence Lessig. This is thought to be his last book on intellectual property law/internet/culture issues.

Lessig introduces the text by considering the war on piracy and the collateral damage that is evident from the strategies of the major players in the content industry. While endorsing the existence of copyright law he argues for essential changes to take place to ensure that balance is achieved and future generations are not criminalised for what they perceive to be reasonable uses of culture. He urges us to step back and to assess the impact of policies and to take account of the both the need for, and likelihood of success, rather than assuming that legislative constraints are the most appropriate solution.

Lessig analyses culture as being either RO (read only) or RW (read write). He begins by examining cultures of the past with the oral tradition of singing and community interaction with culture prior to the advent of modern technology. He observes that developments such as the phonogram, player piano, radio, cassettes, CDs, televisions, VCRs, DVDs etc changed the experience of culture from RW to RO. In doing so there was a loss of tradition, amateurism, creativity and technique. He states that new technologies promise to enable society to return to a RW culture.

He explains that it is not a matter of selecting between two extremes – the internet vs hollywood; RW vs RO; the future vs the past, gains vs losses – but rather that both RO and RW culture can be extended by new technologies and that businesses which incorporate both are likely to emerge. He states that it should not be a matter of preserving RO culture at the expense of RW culture but that all should be encouraged to develop.

He acknowledges that there is part of culture that is created by professionals that we simply consume. Technology has enabled industries to develop with an emphasis on professional creation – the limitations in copying using analogue technology and support from the law prevented individuals from creating and reproducing recorded works. Now, with the advent of digital technology, any person can reproduce culture – it is not impossible but it is illegal.

He refers to the conditions that have always been present for writing – that quoting with citation has always been allowed and that there is an expectation of being able to lend texts from libraries - and argues that all culture will be ‘bookified’ this century. That is to say that we will develop norms around all forms of culture similar to those that have always been present for text.

While RO culture demands respect for creations, provides authority and integrity to culture and is an important part of ensuring the spread of knowledge; RW culture offers itself as a draft, invites a response and empowers as much as it educates and entertains.

RW and in particular remix culture is seen as a form of collage around which communities are developed and which enhances learning and education through participation. Creators are both professionals and amateurs. He argues that RW is an ecosystem that must have conditions which enable it to evolve and develop. Copyright law supports the practices of RO culture and opposes practices of RW culture.

He reflects on what may have been had the content industry accepted and adapted to the introduction of peer to peer file sharing and questions whether the next ten years should be focused on the war on piracy.

Lessig then goes on to describe three economies – the commercial, the sharing and the hybrid. The tangible value exchanged in the commercial economy is money. It is a simple way of spreading wealth and critical to the internet. Examples of internet based commercial economies include Netflix, Amazon and Google with three central features being the long tail, recommendation systems, and lego-ized development.

By contrast, the intangible value exchanged in a sharing economy is not money, indeed money is seen as poisonous to this economy. Rather it depends on the development of social relations in which participation is a key element. Lessig explains that there are two types of sharing cultures – the thin and the thick.

A thin sharing culture is driven by personal gain where motivations for self gain motivate contributions – examples include Skype and AOL’s IM Network.

A thick sharing culture whilst also depending on norms of sharing and cooperation are driven by a motivation to help others – examples include Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, Project Gutenberg, the Distributed Proof Readers Project, Distributed Computing Projects such as SETI@Home, the Internet Archive, the Mars Mapping Project, the Open Directory Project and Open Source Food.

Sharing cultures take advantage of tasks that users would do anyway and are enhanced in the digital environment because of the non rivalrous nature of intangibles. Different technologies enable new forms of participation and sharing and he suggests are likely to become part of the core of the internet’s ecosystem rather than reside at the periphery.

Hybrid economies combine both commercial and sharing attributes. Free Software and in particular Red Hat Linux are specific examples – the community of programmers are respected, they are given responsibility and the sense that they are part of something meaningful – this in turn enables commercial benefits to be derived and combined with a sharing culture. Lessig lists three main forms of hybrid successes, those that create community spaces such as Dogster, Craigslist, Flickr and YouTube; those which create collaborative spaces such as Politech, Slashdot, Last.fm, Usenet, Yahoo! Answers, Wikia and fan sites; and those which create communities such as Second Life. These forums are designed with community in mind and must balance competing priorities and expectations to succeed.

Hybrid economies produce both economic and social value with the spill-over of information having both public and private benefits. Some of the keys to long term sustainability of hybrids include not being overly focused on commercial priorities by aiming to achieve moderate rather than maximum profits, exercising only moderate control with participants being empowered to make some decisions, and transparency of motives. He refers to the transition of CCDB to Gracenotes as one example where greater transparency was required. Feelings of betrayal and a backlash from participants are inevitable when changes are made without consultation or consideration.

He states that one very damaging practice certain to undermine the success of a hybrid is share cropping. He refers to the EULAs of remix competitions where by participant's copyrights are automatically made the property of the competition organisers as one example of this practice.

Lessig states that parallel economies are possible and that creators should be free to move from one to the other as it suits them. He also acknowledges that the existence of hybrid economies which allow some legal uses of creative works as being fundamental to the decriminalisation of the cultural practices of young people.

To ensure a vibrant future for RO culture, RW culture and hybrids Lessig contends that there must be significant changes to the copyright system with far less emphasis on using the legal system to solve problems. At present the default position of copyright is set to ‘No’ but technology and the creativity of youth demand more. While he suggests that Creative Commons goes someway to addressing the issues what is really needed is a complete overhaul of the copyright system.

Lessig argues that there are five central changes which need to be made to Copyright Law. The first is that amateur production needs to be deregulated – non commercial uses should be free use not fair use. There also needs to be clear title to creative works which can only be achieved through a registration system with a renewal process imposed after a short automatic term. Copyright law must also be made simpler with legislation, in addition to fair use, specifying that some uses are not within its scope. He also suggests that the law must be rewritten to focus on uses (such as public distribution) rather than be determined on the notion of copies. Finally he advances that Congress should move to decriminalise file sharing by allowing non commercial sharing with additional taxes or by imposing a blanket licensing procedure.

Without these changes Lessig fears a destructive impact on the rule and respect for law by future generations.

This was a very enjoyable book, it is well written, easy to read and at times quite funny. For my purposes I found it a little too descriptive and thought there could have been more analysis.

The recommendations to change copyright law are not new and could have been more directly integrated with his observations with more attention given to why they are needed and what impact these changes would have on the ecosystem. The coexistence of these two forms of culture (RO/RW) have been the impetus for much of the conflict in this area and there is scope for a much more detailed discussion as to how these can survive and thrive alongside each other.

He uses the recording industry as an example of a hybrid economy with specific reference to the loss of income to major record labels as an illustration of the ability of the industry to embrace both commercial and sharing culture. Whilst I would argue that the music industry (which is wider than just the major record labels) can, and is, a hybrid economy, I would not have referred to these statistics as an example.

There was never any deliberate effort or desire on the part of the labels to embrace this strategy rather it was imposed upon them. They took active steps to prevent this from happening and only in recent times have accepted through the development of avenues such as MySpace Music and changes to Yahoo's search engine results, that complete control is not necessary. The definition of a business within a hybrid economy, and indeed the other examples he uses, refer to businesses willing to give something away in order to gain, rather than what is taken from them. The loss of income to labels while not conclusively or solely due to file sharing, could well be interpreted as an indicator of their inability to be embrace a hybrid model.

Lessig could have also paid more attention to the role of the Corporations Law and how the fiduciary duties of directors and company executives impact on the choices that are made and the obligations to prioritise profit over community.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Babel Objection

One of the areas I discuss in my presentation on the regulation of political music is the relative obscurity in which this form of expression is presently placed. One of the changes I have made to my paper is to include a reference to the text The Wealth of Networks by Professor Benkler of Harvard University.

Benkler considers criticisms raised regarding the democratising potential of the internet and in particular examines the ‘Babel objection’. In Chapter 5 he discusses the idea of information overload and states:

The cornucopia of stories out of which each of us can author our own will only enhance autonomy if it does not resolve into a cacophony of meaningless noise... Having too much information with no real way of separating the wheat from the chaff forms what we might call the Babel objection. Individuals must have access to some mechanism that sifts through the universe of information, knowledge, and cultural moves in order to whittle them down to a manageable and usable scope [Ch 5 pg 22-23].

He goes on to note that there are two primary mechanisms by which the Babel objection is overcome in the digital environment. Firstly, instead of isolated sites and users, there is a tendency for common interests to cluster (such as through interlinking) to establish both a core group of sites relating to certain themes as well as other more loosely connected but associated sources. He refers to this as a Bow Tie structure [Ch 7 pg 27]. Furthermore, peer recommendation, editing and filtering mechanisms assist to order the information on the internet to ensure that it is both diverse and manageable [Ch 5 pg 24].

He then goes on to refer directly to the improvements that the networked information economy provides with respect to music:

Instead of relying on the judgement of record labels and a DJ of a commercial radio station for what music is worth listening to, users can compare notes as to what they like, and give music to friends whom they think will like it. This is the virtue of music file-sharing systems as distribution systems [Ch 5 pg 25].

While I agree with the sentiments expressed with respect to music generally, when one examines the digital environment with a distinct focus on political music it becomes apparent that there is not a high level of clustering, filtering or peer recommendation.

In proposing specific strategies such as:

  1. The allocation of dedicated space for political songs on digital music sites and the integration of weblogs, wikis and discussion forums,
  2. Modifications to search engines to allow songs to be searched by imbedded tags or key words,
  3. Allowing non commercial uses by genuine non profit websites, and
  4. The development of a central repository or archive,

my goal is to create a digital environment which enables clustering, peer recommendation and filtering in order that oppositional audible culture may overcome the Babel objection and realise its true communicative capacity.

Further Reading
Yochai Benkler, ‘The Wealth of Networks’ [Paper Friendly Version] (2006)
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Download_PDFs_of_the_book> at 10 September 2008

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

In The Matter of Mashups

It has been very pleasing to hear the Australian ABC radio station, Triple J, play the new Girl Talk track 'Let Me See You' from the album 'Feed the Animals' repeatedly in recent weeks. I admire both Gillis skill and tenacity in blending old sounds into new art.

A number of articles have been written recently about the potential legal impediments to this type of creation and the threat that creators of mashups face from copyright holders. Gillis consistently refers to his sampling as a form of fair use suggesting that he transforms the original works by recontextualising them. Others suggest, based on Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), that any sampling requires a license and it is just a matter of time before Gillis ends up before a court.

It was interesting to me to read recently that his music is licensed under a non commercial use creative commons license. One commentator questioned this given that Gillis himself is selling his music and yet he inturn seeks to prevent others from making a profit from sampling his remixes. The argument, which I found hard to agree with, was essentially that he was being hypocritical. I personally recognise the new value he has created and consider a non commercial use license as a generous affirmation of the values of the culture that surround the art form.

The law with respect to sampling highlights the inability of the legal system and the legislatures to keep up with modern developments and trends. It shows a distinct lack of flexibility to emerging art forms with many more creations such as these likely in the future. Indeed a German avant-garde musician Johannes Kreidler recently composed a song that samples 70,200 other musical works in 33 seconds.

Part of the problem is the uncertainty with the legal tests that are applied – in the United States factors such as the amount of the work that is used, whether it is for a commercial or non commercial purpose and the impact the use has on the market for the work are deciding factors. But in themselves as guidelines they are simply too vague for creators to apply to real life situations with certainty.

The situation in Australia is generally considered more strict but turns on whether a substantial portion of the prior work has been used.

I propose that the law be changed to allow an additional fair use/fair dealing right for music mashups. A maximum sample of 15 seconds of any song should be permissible before a license is required. This sample could be used repeatedly in the same song but any longer would require copyright clearance. Attribution should also be provided.

By providing a clear cut, timed segment of music without the need to compensate the copyright holder this art form would be free to develop without negatively impacting on the ability of past creators to receive entitlements from their works. As is often the case, the mashups trigger people’s cultural memories and sometimes even result in an increase in sales of back catalogue items.


Further Reading

MySpace, Girl Talk <http://www.myspace.com/girltalk> at 2 September 2008

Pop Matters, Life Savers: Girl Talk (17 July 2008)
<http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/60913/life-savers-girl-talk/> at 2 September 2008

Digital Music News, Resnikoff's Parting Shot: Girl Talk (31 July 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/073008parting> at 7 August 2008

TechDirt, Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use? (25 July 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080707/0016231597.shtml> at 28 July 2008

P2p Blog, Musician mashes up 70,200 songs, delivers lists to rights holders by the truck load (21 August 2008) <http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-826.html> at 22 August 2008

Wikipedia, Good Copy Bad Copy (13 August 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_copy_bad_copy> at 2 September 2008

Wikipedia, Girl Talk (musician) (31 August 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)> at 2 September 2008

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The Evolution of Culture: Is Political Music Still Being Heard?

Updated: Here is the draft of a presentation I will be giving in the coming weeks. I discuss the nature of political music, the institutional developments and constraints on its production and reception and some strategies that could be employed to maximise its potential for social change.

Keep in mind that this is a work in progress.

Power point presentation with audio – warning large file
(this file has been updated)

Power point presentation without audio (see notes view)

Bibliography (word document)

(Select download with File Factory Basic).

Monday, June 9, 2008

Draft: Society’s Bill of Rights for Digital Music

I was reading with some interest the TechDirt analysis of the ASCAP Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers and thought to start drafting something similar for society - naturally there are some differences but if others would like to add some comments to this perhaps we could all start to think a little more about how we want our society and the future to be shaped:

1. All internet users, regardless of their country of origin should have equal access to music
2. All music should have be given equal prominence and treatment no matter what
software platform it is on
3. All internet users should have equal opportunity to upload and share their creations
4. All non commercial uses should be treated as such with no threat of copyright, contract or
other law suits
5. All digital music should be free of digital rights management protection
6. All commercial creators shall cooperate with the development of an alternative licensing
regime which will seek to maximise the free flow of culture whilst providing reasonable
compensation
7. All citizens of the world shall be free to enjoy and exchange music from all other countries
without any digital, economic, social or lawful restrictions other than those associated with
the above mentioned alternative licensing and compensation scheme
8. All citizens will be entitled to take an active role in developing new music including new
styles, political and socially beneficial music, and undertake to educate the youth to do so as
well
9. All creators will be free to continue to exploit their music in real space in anyway they chose
but only in addition to their participation in the alternative licensing and compensation
scheme
10. These rights shall endure for eternity and beyond.


Further Reading:
ASCAP, A Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers (May 2008)<http://www.ascap.com/rights/> at 9 June 2008

TechDirt, ASCAPs Bill of Wrongs (30 May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/2308011264.shtml> at 9 June 2008

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Song of The Unicorn

First of all let me say sorry for the recent interruption to this blog – life can be unpredictable at times. Hopefully from now things will return to normal...

I have blogged before about the fantastic selection of children’s music available on eMusic and wanted to share with you a beautiful album I downloaded for my daughter recently.

Song of the Unicorn is one of the many fabulous albums available in the Classical Kids series. It tells the story of a young prince (Owen) and princess (Megan) sent on a mission to find a unicorn to cure their mother’s illness. Set in medieval times, characters include Merlin the Wizard and King Arthur. Combining fact and fantasy, the music reflects the renaissance period and the story includes a discussion about the birth of music.

Merlin talks about notes being born of silence and carried on the wind on the island of Atlantis 10,000 years earlier and how the people played their pipes to celebrate the harvest. With a volcanic eruption the city of Atlantis is sunk beneath the sea and for a thousand years music lived a half life before monks in monasteries began to chant and tried to write down the notes to their songs. He then talks of travelling musicians bringing new instruments from far away lands – Lutes from Asia, Pipes from Africa and the Harp from Europe and how music was now ready to move into the future. He talks of the future and how the shadows in his cave represent the cello, violin, clarinet, oboe and trombone which will not be heard for another 1000 years.

Megan is given the task of determining the future of music with Merlin stating: “If you wish to change the future you must foretell it.”Megan must reveal the unicorn song to save her mother and as she starts to play her Lute and begins to imagine, she succeeds by evoking what we now refer to as orchestral music. Merlin wonders how a child could dream such beauty and says that when they hear that music again they will know that they have cured their mother’s illness. They must find a unicorn but the unicorn will only approach a child who is pure of heart and sitting in an open field singing.

Megan and Own then travel to the island of Avalon to find the unicorns and are assisted by King Arthur who warns them of his sister Morgan. While waiting for the boat to take them over to the island Megan plays her Lute again, this time singing songs about their travels and how she wishes to be back at home in the kingdom. Morgan, having tried but failed to catch a unicorn in the past and desperate for one of their magic horns, tricks Megan and Owen by saying that she is the only one that can make their mother better and that she will only do so if they bring a unicorn to her.

Megan succeeds in drawing the unicorn close to her but Morgan’s archers are waiting by and shoot arrows at the unicorn – these are magically diverted to part the sky and Megan and the unicorn are saved. Megan then says to the unicorn that the only thing she can give it is freedom and with that the unicorn touches its horn on her instrument and on her necklace, and the beautiful music that she imagined in Merlin’s cave starts to play again. Later they return to the castle to find their mother has been cured and she tells them of her dream about two children and a unicorn.

This story and music are both beautiful and this is an album my daughter and I will cherish forever, however we understand the message from this story on different levels. I particularly like the idea of the birth of music from silence and the evolution it takes over time and under differing conditions and influences. I also very much appreciate the notion that the future of music is in the hands of the children and that without the ability and desire to imagine the future all we have is the present and the past.

The magic unicorn can also take on a representative form for me as I imagine that its desire to allow music to move into the future takes place only once it has been freed. Morgan, with her deception and motivation to kill the unicorn, could some ways be symbolic of the current regulatory climate music faces today, paralleling the desire to keep the magic of music as private property for the purposes of personal gain. Like much of culture, these symbols and meanings are a matter of personal interpretation.

From an educational point of view this CD, like all of those we have listened to so far in this series, is fantastic. The layering of an interesting story with periodic music educates, illustrates and entices young people in a way that is in itself a form of magic. On one level my daughter hears a story about two children, but underneath it there is the history of music presented in an effortless and enjoyable way. Megan acts also as a role model in some respects, not just because of the purity of her heart, but to show children that making music is beautiful, a way of connecting with people, expressing emotions and changing the world.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

When Worlds Collide – Part 2

Following on from my last post which discussed the differences between real space and cyberspace, I would now like to consider the implications and influences of technological developments on music. Identifying how technological changes have enhanced the ability of music to communicate enables an evaluation of the current conditions offered by the digital music environment and ways in which their potential can be maximised. Socio economic conditions influence technological conditions and vice versa throughout history.

Evolution not Revolution
In the last post I referred to the conception of three worlds by Sir Karl Popper. Another of his theories is that of refutation – here he suggest that knowledge of the world is produced through a process of problem solving iterations. His model for scientific testing starts with a problem solving situation, applies tentative theories which identify false results enabling a determination of the most probable answer(s), leading inturn to more complex and interesting problem solving situations. The identification of false results in one sense is said to emulate the process of natural selection in the biological environment by identifying the most suitable or fit result.

In a similar way to Popper’s theory of knowledge and the theory of evolution, the movement of culture from an analogue environment to a hybrid analogue/digital environment with an ever increasing emphasis on the digital, takes place through a sequence of problem solving, theorising, error elimination and more problem solving.

This theory can be applied in a number of macro and micro extrapolations. The internet itself arguably follows much the same pattern, but for these purposes the focus will be on the narrower conception of the digital music environment as well as music itself.

In the digital music environment, the difficulties creating artificial scarcity led to major content owners, and in turn governments, theorising that increased protections are the most suitable response to the control of intangibles in an intangible environment. Others contend that the problem is not one of recreating scarcity but rather recognition of the impossibility of achieving this and adapting to take advantage of the new environment.

Content owners, motivated by self preservation and money rather than artist, artistic or public benefit, in misidentifying the nature of the problem entered into a cycle which has not solved the true problem and arguably has made the conditions worse for themselves and everyone else. From this perspective strategies such as DRM, file sharing lawsuits against individuals and software developers which inturn impact on overall technological development, the development of closed architectures for music distribution on the internet and the attempt to keep independent artists marginalised by refusing to adopt alternative business models, are the result of addressing the wrong problem in the first place. In contrast, identifying the problem as a need maximise the opportunities for creativity and free expression by applying a theory of positive inclusive community would lead to more interesting and productive problems to resolve such as the detail, application and subsequent revisions of an alternative compensation scheme.

In one sense the content owners have characterised the digital music environment as a context inciting revolution rather than evolution.

Culture also undergoes a constant evolution. Music provides an obvious illustration as a form of expression subjected to differing conditions which favour the existence of certain form, content, styles, accessibility, ability to communicate and in turn the production of social progress.

From its most primitive form of personal, tribal and then public performance, communication through music was, and to a relative extent remains, limited by skill, time and space. Public performances require mastery of instruments, exist for a very finite period of time and are only available to a specific and limited audience. Historically public performance represented the analogue manifestation of music and since this time there has been an ongoing evolution to the form of expression brought about by changes in technology.

The advent of radio saw the removal of space limitations enabling much larger and remote audiences to access music of live performers. This was followed by recording technology which then removed the limitations of time and space enabling audiences to access music at their convenience. Digital technologies also contributed to the production of music with the advent of instruments such as the synthesiser removing many of the barriers for the average person to compose and perform.

The advent of the internet was another major technological development which itself is dynamic and subject to constant change. Here we see the convergence of all the previous adaptations of the production and reception of culture to technology with skill, time and space being further supplemented by enabling instant, low cost and global distribution of works. In some respects for music, this is the ultimate iteration of technology with the potential for the most number of errors inhibiting communication to be eliminated. However the true potential has not yet been properly realised.

As the technological evolution has taken place so too has the content of culture evolved. The content of music has moved from anthropological and community applications to global issues. There have been detectable historical trends with respect to the prevalence of messages within music, one particular notable example being the status of protest music in the United States in the 1960s. This occurred at a time when FM radio was open and commercially ambivalent and there had been technological advances in recording equipment and techniques. Subsequent convergence of record labels and the increased influence of capitalism on the music environment ultimately led to the prevalence of emotive and dance music. If the digital music environment is able to realise its full potential there would inevitably be greater opportunity for the diversity of culture and the ability to support political music and other nonmainstream content.

At various moments in history the technological conditions have combined with the socio economic conditions to favour certain styles over others. In medieval times for example, minstrels and street performers were took on the role of illustrating current events in the commons for those largely illiterate and removed from the immediacy of royalty. Similarly the technical and socio economic conditions in the classical era saw the highest quality of music performed before limited and exclusive audiences. In contrast church music has more generally been performed in a more open environment. Over time and largely in line with changes to technology there has been an exponential growth in the number and diversity of musical styles. While there are many different conceptions to the evolution of musical styles, milestones following the dilution of the classical era include blues, jazz and folk. Rock music marks the start of a dramatic expansion of musical styles which continues unabated today.

The internet and digital technology in particular have created unique musical styles through the use of sampling techniques, mashing and remixing. Enabling limitless reproduction and variation this technology again offers the ultimate iteration by removing barriers to production of music. Similarly with the promise of open and limitless access, this context offers the opportunity to maximise receptive mediation. However the continued determination of major content owners to control music by misinterpreting the problems created by the digital music environment poses an ongoing threat to the realisation of the benefits of this technology.

By enabling or restricting expression, differing modes of communication and architectures in turn influence the effectiveness, style and content of music and therefore the ability to transfer and receive messages. The ultimate conditions for digital culture offer the maximum opportunity for expression to create social progress and without a constant review of the problem solving sequence invoked there will be delays and the possibility that the full potential of the environment will not be realised.

Further Reading
Ed. Michael Benedikt, Cyberspace First Steps (1993)

Wikipedia, Karl Popper (9 May 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Karl_Popper> at
12 May 2008

Monday, May 12, 2008

Filesharing failures

Recent reports have again highlighted the ineffectiveness of the RIAA file sharing lawsuit strategy. While there has been a sudden increase in letters of demand being sent to universities across the United States, up to date statistical information further supports the suggestion that peer to peer file sharing continues unaffected. By examining these reports it is possible to reflect on the cost and embarrassment of pursing such as weak and ineffective strategy.

Reports at the end of April and beginning of May suggest that there has been a significant increase in the number of notices being sent by the RIAA to universities. Wired reported a 20 fold increase that focuses on universities in the Midwest, with Indiana University receiving 80 legal notices a day rather than the same number over a period of a month.

Ars Technica recently reported that since the commencement of the lawsuit campaign a total of 5,404 letters have been sent with 2,300 electing to settle the dispute prior to the commencement of legal action. In response to the reports regarding the recent increase the RIAA stated:

We are always making an effort to more effectively and efficiently detect infringing activity on the Internet, as we are continuously looking for ways to improve our ability to find and act on incidences of theft online. Having said that, there's been no change in our procedures.

Many have criticised the lawsuit strategy as failing to have the desired impact on file sharing activity, arguing that it creates: an unjustified burden on average citizens, marginalises much of the youth perpetuating disrespect for the industry, resulting in no additional income or long term benefits for artists, and threatens the neutrality of the internet by coopting internet service providers, amongst other concerns. Indeed the most recent statistical information suggests that this strategy is a complete failure.

The 2008 Digital Music Report from the IFPI suggested that any slight increases in sales of digital music were quickly offset by a further decline in CD purchases and a continued rise in file sharing activity. Independent reports confirm this.

A NPD survey published earlier this year reported that only 42% of music acquired in the US last year was from legitimate sources, declining from 48% in 2006. Furthermore while the number of users has remained stable at around 19% there has been an increase in the number of files shared and sharing among teenagers.

Highlighting further issues with the law suit strategy, the report also indicates that 38% of albums are acquired through friends burning or ripping a home-made CD with only 19% acquired from illegal downloads.

Another NPD Survey focusing on children aged 9 to 14 shows that 49% use iTunes, 26% use LimeWire, while 16% trade music via MySpace. Two thirds reported accessing the Internet without adult supervision with 59% downloading music without assistance. Russ Crupnick, vice president and entertainment industry analyst for The NPD Group stated:

The music industry hoped that litigation and education might encourage parents to keep better tabs on their kids’ digital music activities, but the truth is many kids continue to share music via P2P.

Conducted via email with 3,376 responses from a sample representing the US population of families with children aged 2 to 14, the survey did report some increase in legitimate music sales. Twenty-nine million consumers acquired digital music via pay-to-download sites, an increase of 5 million people in the past 12 months. Nonetheless, digital sales still fail to reflect the true music consumption habits of US citizens.

What is apparent, and indeed has been for some time, is that the lawsuit strategy is simply not working. Every party involved, with the exception of a few industry lawyers, incurs a negative impact without any tangible benefit: students and their families are financially disadvantaged, society is poorer for not having open access to culture, artists continue to struggle, record labels are incurring costs, and the internet and internet service providers are increasingly under strain.

When one considers the potential for voluntary collective licensing all of these negative implications are mitigated. The introduction of a licensing scheme would enable students and their families to direct their finances to their education rather than a private industry unwilling to adapt to a new environment. Society and artists would be better off with the incentive to create high quality works, unlimited access and the freedom to explore cultures from around the world. Removing the legal system from the equation would allow for these resources to be directed to addressing other issues, force the record labels to compete, relieve pressure on internet service providers and reduce the incentives to de-neutralise the network.

However it is not just RIAA that should be embarrassed about this strategy but the United States government and those endorsing this approach in other jurisdictions . With an emphatic illustration of the failure and associated costs, neither the RIAA nor the government have the foresight or courage to make the decisions that are essential for us all. The cost is to culture, free speech and democracy.

Further Reading
Digital Music News, Universities Report Climb In RIAA Letters... (2 May 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050108college> at 5 May 2008

Wired Blog, Universities Baffled By Massive Surge In RIAA Copyright Notices (30 April 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/riaa-sends-spik.html> at 3 May 2008

TechDirt, RIAA Massively Ramps Up Warning Notices To College Students Over File Sharing (May 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/1552351013.shtml> at 3 May 2008

The Register, Freetards fill their boots - music survey (18 April 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/18/npd_music_survey/> at 26 April 2008

The NPD Group, Consumers Acquire More Music in 2007, But Spend Less (26 February 2008) <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080226a.html> at 27 February 2008

The NPD Group, Kids in the U.S. Continue to Download Music Illegally (30 January 2008)
<http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080130b.html > at 12 May 2008

Slyck, P2P Downloading Still a Top Choice for Kids (30 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1651_P2P_Downloading_Still_a_Top_Choice_for_Kids> at 5 February 2008

ZeroPaid, STUDY: 26% of Kids Still Using Limewire (1 February 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9239/STUDY%3A+26%25+of+Kids+Still+Using+Limewire> at 4 February 2008

The Age, 95% of music downloads are illegal (25 January 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html> at 31 January 2008

Slyck, P2P Downloads Crush iTunes/Digital Sales 20:1 (24 January 2008) <http://www.slyck.com/story1642_P2P_Downloads_Crush_iTunesDigital_Sales_201> at 31 January 2008

Digital Music News, IFPI Global Sales Data Reaffirms Sluggish Story (23 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012308global> at 30 January 2008

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Ad Supported Music – Part 2

This is the second part to an earlier post in which I discussed the increasing use of advertising in business models to supplement or replace income from individual consumers in the digital music environment. Moving on from the worst case scenario, this post considers the ways in which an ad supported business model could be employed in a beneficial way.

The Most Favourable Model
Ad supported business models for music could create opportunities for the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy if developed in a way that took account of the potential negative implications and sought to overcome these. Ad supported music services offer an enormous potential for the reception of culture, enabling any person with access to the internet the ability to enjoy and explore an essentially unlimited range of material. Under the right conditions, business models of this nature also offer the potential to level the playing field for the entry of new creators. Again it is important to consider the nature of the enterprise offering the music service, the equality of access for speakers, the mode of communication and its influence on audiences as well as the independence of the opinions of creators.

In contrast to profit seeking entities, non profit associations or formal cooperatives allow a much greater opportunity to accommodate goals of an abstract nature such as the pursuit of a diverse and fair music industry; allow for democratic decision making and mutual ownership. While not all corporations possess objectives of extreme and unmitigated capitalism, any structure other than these would, if not from the outset, then certainly in time, allow for the worst case scenario as described earlier to develop. Employing an alternative structure does not mean operating without creating revenue but that this is not the primary objective. Any profits are returned to the members or used to enhance the service itself for the ultimate benefit of the public.

By employing such a structure there is a far greater opportunity to secure equality of access for creators thus promoting active public participation. In discussing an alternative compensation model for open peer to peer file sharing, Professor Terry (William) Fisher suggests that rather than just considering the number of times a track is downloaded or streamed from a digital music service, that an alternative or hybrid satisfaction determinant may be achieved through a public voting or rating system. Media corporations could continue to operate in such an environment but would be no more powerful to control the direction or development of the service(s) than any other member.

The democratic structure also provides for an open and transparent division of advertising revenue. By ensuring that independent, particularly politically motivated artists have equal access, enhances the likelihood of this genre of music to be created reducing the present commercial preference for emotive and dance music.

The mode of communication is also a fundamental determinant in the ability to secure free expression to the benefit of democracy. Unlike the closed internet architecture models discussed in the previous post, and while again a matter of degree in each instance, open peer to peer file sharing networks, particularly those written with open source code, offer no limitations to participation and unlimited file formats. Whilst the issue of digital rights management for individual files is not directly prevented by this model, typically it has been the case that unprotected files have been uploaded to open networks. If the remuneration of artists were to be facilitated on open networks there would more than likely be a need to track downloads or streams in some way, for example, through the use of non-invasive watermarks or other software. The non profit nature of the structure would therefore aid in limiting the incentives to implement digital rights management technology to the extent used in closed networks, allowing far greater reception, interpretation and mediation of culture.

The independence of the expression of creators would also be ensured to a far greater degree if an advertising model were adopted within a democratic/non private structure. There would also be less incentive to exclude or favour particular advertisers and the potential to allocate a quantity of advertising space to non profit or socially beneficial endeavours.

Conclusion
In the end the adoption of ad supported business models may not be identical for each music service presently in place or developed into the future. Nonetheless there are conditions in which political music and a diversity of culture will thrive over others. Left to the interests of powerful corporations it is far more likely that the potential for creativity, free speech and democracy will not be realised. Some parallels may be drawn with the implications of commercial television compared with the more liberal programming of public television. In order to enhance the quality of music and to create the conditions in which deliberative democracy can take place, there must be equity between creators, an open communication model and expression independent of the overbearing influence of capitalism.


Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008

TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008

TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008

Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008

CNet News, Ad-supported SpiralFrog finally launches music site (7 August 2007) <http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6201315.html> at 12 August 2007

Digital Music News, SpiralFrog Grabs $2 Million...With Serious Strings Attached (2 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/010207spiralfrog> at 11 January 2008

Digital Music News, MySpace Scores Gold Record (In Ad-Supported Terms) (24 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032308pennywise> at 26 March 2008

Digital Music News, Back from the Brink: Qtrax Licensing Deals Emerge (3 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030308qtrax> at 5 March 2008

Digital Music News, Details Bubbling on Major-Backed, Ad-Supported Venture (19 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021708ad> at 21 February 2008

Digital Music News, Gabriel Pumps Serious Cash Into Ad-Supported Startup (22 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012008gabriel> at 30 January 2008

William Fisher III, Promises To Keep (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Keep-Technology-Entertainment-Stanford/dp/080475845X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210219722&sr=8-1> at 5 May 2008

Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008

Wikipedia, Deliberative Democracy (7 February 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy> at 6 May 2008

Wikipedia, Public Television (25 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_television> at 6 May 2008

Free Press <http://freepress.net/> at 6 May 2008

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Ad Supported Music – Part 1

In a recent digital media survey concerning ad supported, subscription and pay per play business models, 62% of senior media executives stated an expectation that content creators will develop ad-supported business models by 2013. Twenty-five percent considered content creators would focus on subscription-based models and only 11% favoured pay-per-play services. While this survey did not specifically consider the pay per download model, the anticipation of an increase in adoption of ad supported services reflects current trends within the music industry and is a reasonable prediction. With this is mind it is pertinent to consider the ways in which such a model could develop, with the potential for both positive and negative attributes.

Traditional notions of free speech suggest that public spaces enable a market place of ideas which further the ends of liberty and justice. This conception of free speech depends on three vital assumptions – active public participation facilitated by equality in access for speakers; the mode of communication and its influence on audiences, and the independence of the opinions of speakers. The degree to which these attributes exist in the digital music environment reflects the potential opportunities for, or impediments to, free expression.

In this post I will outline some of the conditions least likely to realise the benefits cyberspace offers. In a follow up post I will counter this discussion with an outline of the ways that ad supported business models could be used to produce conditions favourable to creators and society.

The Worst Case Scenario
The use of advertising to supplement or replace direct consumer payments for music could have detrimental consequences if developed without adequate foresight. Where ad supported music services are owned privately and operated on a for-profit basis there are inevitably implications for free expression and democracy. These manifest primarily in a negative way by reducing the equality of access to speakers, in the selection of communication models and by influencing the content of creations. At present there is already a low level of competition within the legitimate digital music market. The natural tendency of capitalist corporations is to consolidate through mergers and in the event that a reasonable level of competition could not be maintained between web services, there would again be further threats to the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy.

In evaluating the ability of creators to equally access digital music services, the position of independent artists is of fundamental importance. Artists should have equal opportunity to communicate their works to the public and the same opportunities to produce financial rewards. Where such web services are related to major record labels there is an extremely high possibility that independents will not be given equal treatment. Even if such web services are owned and run separately from major content providers, the profit seeking motive of a private enterprise may nonetheless be enough to create a similar level of favouritism. This could occur in direct ways through limiting the participation of unsigned artists altogether or through indirect ways such as the allocation of prominent spaces, reviews and other promotional activities in an unfair manner.

The internet itself is a communication mode separate and distinguishable from others such as the mass media. Within this mode of communication a number of architectural models can be employed. For-profit, private music services are more likely to engage closed architectures. These include structures such as streaming subscription services, digital media stores and closed peer to peer networks. Whilst a continuum and matter of degree in each instance, a closed architecture by definition limits the ability of creators and consumers to participate by imposing requirements such as formal identification, entry payments and limiting the range of file formats. In addition to this, restrictions on the life span and subsequent uses of the content through the use of digital rights management technology influences the reception, interpretation and mediation of expression.

Another important factor in evaluating the ability for ad supported music services to achieve these goals is the independence of opinions expressed by creators. Two important factors are the strength of the connection between individual artists and commercial sponsorship, and the content of the advertising itself.

If implemented in a way that created direct sponsorship arrangements with individual artists, the use of advertising to supplement or replace the income of creators could amount to a level of commercialism within the music industry not seen even today. While many consider the present concentration of major record labels as harmful, by directly tying commercial sponsorship to the production of music and remuneration of artists, there would be a further constriction of free expression. If on the other hand, ad supported business models were connected only to the internet based music services themselves, there may be less influence over the content of creations and artists that are rewarded.

The nature of advertisements available on such web services also raises an interesting issue. It is feasible to suggest that whilst such services could cater to an enormous range of sponsors, that any site with a critical level of popularity will attract specific and demanding corporate advertisers. The size and the placement of the advertisements may be one factor to consider but the content and the nature of the advertisers is also a central concern. As Mike Masnick of TechDirt writes, advertising is a form of content just as content is a form of advertising.

Where corporate interests determine what music is produced and which artists will succeed, this inevitably results in a lack of cultural diversity and an absence of political or thought provoking material. This leads to less social and political awareness, therefore reducing civil participation and progress.


Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008

TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008

TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008

TechDirt, On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements (25 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080324/000718629.shtml> at 27 March 2008

TechDirt, Just Because Content Is Free Doesn't Mean It's Worthless (15 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/153919828.shtml> at 17 April 2008

Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008

Wired Listening Post, Qtrax Inks Deal With Universal for Legal P2P Music (6 May 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/qtrax-inks-deal.html> at 7 May 2008

Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008