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
Showing posts with label Media Ownership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Ownership. Show all posts
Thursday, May 8, 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
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
Friday, April 11, 2008
Public and Private Governance
Following on from a number of recent posts which have considered the dominance of major record labels and the impact of their actions on the production and reception of political music, today I would like to briefly introduce the concept of private governance.
Below you will find links to a power point presentation I delivered last year titled ‘The Dialectical Interplay of Public and Private Governance: consequences for audible culture’. Arguing that we have reached a state of globalised private governance over audible culture, I conclude that the present degree of disablement of public governance structures, which took place through a series of historical developments and the emergence of modern corporations law, dramatically hinders (if not completely prevents) the resolution of the present conflict with respect to digital music.
This is not so much a new concept as an application of an existing perspective to the digital music environment. Lawrence Lessig began to consider the impact of private governance in cyberspace in Code (2.0). Chapter 16 in particular, concerns ‘the problems we face’. Here he refers to the limitations that are presently in place preventing the courts, legislature and ourselves, from being able to respond to the challenges of cyberspace.
He contends that the courts are paralysed from making the decisions they need to make as they are unable to adequately separate themselves from the political environment and because there is no ability for them to apply constitutional values to a space that is primarily privately owned and operated.
He also refers to the problems of governance itself (not just governance with respect to cyberspace), including the corruption of the political process through campaign donations and the establishment of private governance mechanisms such as ICANN, located outside the democratic process.
Finally he considers the problems with our understanding of, and interaction with, code, suggesting that in recognising the private status of this form of regulation, we should be asking things like: Who makes and writes the law? What is the scope for society to have an input into its development? Do we have a right to know about the regulation? And, is there a way for us to intervene or review it?
He states (at 324):
Whether code should be tested with these constraints of public value is a question, not a conclusion. It needs to be decided by argument, not definition... Courts are disabled, legislatures pathetic and code untouchable.
In real space, the concept of private governance has also been considered in the context of the destruction of the natural environment.
I see the impact of private governance on digital music as being a self perpetuating cycle – using the corporations law and public choice theory, media entities lobby and receive stronger legal protections enabling them to control the production and reception of culture, which in turn limits the awareness and ability of the public to challenge their control. Indeed, when culture is controlled in this way the implications are much wider than just digital music - impeding the realisation of constitutional values in cyberspace, the natural environment and many other areas of life. Political music illustrates, educates, motivates, and in conjunction with social movements, precipitates into social progress - provided it can be produced and accessed on a socially cohesive scale.
Below you will find links to a power point presentation I delivered last year titled ‘The Dialectical Interplay of Public and Private Governance: consequences for audible culture’. Arguing that we have reached a state of globalised private governance over audible culture, I conclude that the present degree of disablement of public governance structures, which took place through a series of historical developments and the emergence of modern corporations law, dramatically hinders (if not completely prevents) the resolution of the present conflict with respect to digital music.
This is not so much a new concept as an application of an existing perspective to the digital music environment. Lawrence Lessig began to consider the impact of private governance in cyberspace in Code (2.0). Chapter 16 in particular, concerns ‘the problems we face’. Here he refers to the limitations that are presently in place preventing the courts, legislature and ourselves, from being able to respond to the challenges of cyberspace.
He contends that the courts are paralysed from making the decisions they need to make as they are unable to adequately separate themselves from the political environment and because there is no ability for them to apply constitutional values to a space that is primarily privately owned and operated.
He also refers to the problems of governance itself (not just governance with respect to cyberspace), including the corruption of the political process through campaign donations and the establishment of private governance mechanisms such as ICANN, located outside the democratic process.
Finally he considers the problems with our understanding of, and interaction with, code, suggesting that in recognising the private status of this form of regulation, we should be asking things like: Who makes and writes the law? What is the scope for society to have an input into its development? Do we have a right to know about the regulation? And, is there a way for us to intervene or review it?
He states (at 324):
Whether code should be tested with these constraints of public value is a question, not a conclusion. It needs to be decided by argument, not definition... Courts are disabled, legislatures pathetic and code untouchable.
In real space, the concept of private governance has also been considered in the context of the destruction of the natural environment.
I see the impact of private governance on digital music as being a self perpetuating cycle – using the corporations law and public choice theory, media entities lobby and receive stronger legal protections enabling them to control the production and reception of culture, which in turn limits the awareness and ability of the public to challenge their control. Indeed, when culture is controlled in this way the implications are much wider than just digital music - impeding the realisation of constitutional values in cyberspace, the natural environment and many other areas of life. Political music illustrates, educates, motivates, and in conjunction with social movements, precipitates into social progress - provided it can be produced and accessed on a socially cohesive scale.
The solutions are outlined by Lessig in Chapter 17 of Code 2.0 and are undoubtedly the subject of much of his current research. As one of the major drivers of wider social progress, I would suggest that freedom of culture is a key component to this movement. Whilst it is tempting to suggest that the freedom of culture has to come before the reclamation of the legislature and democracy, more accurately, this is a fight that needs to be fought on multiple fronts at the same time. One cannot succeed without the other and both will happen in increments.
There are two versions of this file:
The first is an animated slide show with a synchronised audio track for those wishing to play the presentation – the text of the talk is also available in the notes view (large file): http://www.filefactory.com/file/bb3dbe/
The alternative version has just the text of the talk which can be read in the notes view (smaller file): http://www.filefactory.com/file/545d0c/
A separate document is provided as a bibliography: http://www.filefactory.com/file/61ff19/
Further Reading:
Lessig, Lawrence, Code 2.0 (2006)
Korten, David C, When Corporations Rule the World (2nd ed. 2001)
Wikipedia, The Prince (8 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince> at 11 April 2008
Project Gutenberg, The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (1532)
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232> at 11 April 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Shut Up & Sing
Continuing my recent series of posts on interesting music DVDs, the other night I watched the Dixie Chicks film ‘Shut Up & Sing: Freedom of speech is fine provided you don’t do it in public’ – a 2006 documentary, released in June 2007 in Australia. The film covers a three year span in the band's career and examines the events surrounding political statements made by the band's lead singer Natalie Maines with respect to the war in Iraq.
In 2003, as the war was commencing, Natalie stated during a live concert in London that the band were opposed to the war and that she was “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas”. These comments sparked an extremely negative reaction from some country music fans, the majority of which were very strong Bush supporters. The backlash included protesters outside their concerts, the burning and destruction of CDs and merchandise, a ban by some radio stations, significant loss of CD sales and even a death threat to Maines. Despite issuing a statement clarifying the comments and openly supporting the troops serving in Iraq, the issue was quickly sensationalised by the media and snowballed beyond the control of the band.
Whilst not the genre of music I would normally listen to, I found this film illustrated some very important points with respect to free speech and the music industry.
The statement itself, which appears to have been unplanned, was nonetheless an expression of the signer’s political views. Clearly shocked at the negative reaction, they firstly tried to qualify the comments. As time went on however, they became determined to highlight the way a sector of the media and the general public were attempting to censor their views.
At a concert soon after the event, the band, in acknowledging the importance of free speech, allowed concert goers an opportunity to boo openly if they felt the need to express their lack of support for the singer’s comments. Interestingly enough there was well voiced support for the band instead of booing, but nonetheless, their relationship with many fans was significantly strained. The band closed their websites and chat rooms following the incident, which in itself could be seen as a form of censorship however other sites including FreeRepublic.com provided adequate opportunity for those concerned to express their views. In fact, it is suggested in the film that members of FreeRepublic were instrumental in organising the boycott and movement against the band.
The discussion considers the right of a radio stations to select the music it plays, particularly when an artist is politically active. Senator Gordon Smith noted that politics can have ‘business consequences’ for artists and that many have realised that these consequences may be negative.
The concentration of media ownership is not limited to radio networks but operates throughout the content industry, including television and the print media (see for example the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.) In the music industry the major labels are also often seen to contribute to this form of censorship by selecting acts that appeal to the widest possible sector of the public to ensure greater commercial success. This typically marginalises artists with views that may not be so readily accepted by the mainstream.
If music is to provide social commentary and to contribute to the progress of society, there must be the infrastructure in place to ensure that the political views of a small but powerful minority do not influence the content of the works that are produced and made accessible to the public. The best way to ensure this takes place is to decentralise power through ensuring a diversity of media ownership and sources. This includes business models that will sustain independent artists, decentralised distribution networks and network neutrality.
In this example it appears that there is a happy ending. Since the time this statement was initially made, public support in the USA for the war has changed dramatically and in 2007 the band collected five Grammy Awards including Record of the Year, Song of the Year and Best Country Album. However this should not detract from the many artists that continue to be marginalised by the commercial interests of the labels and other mainstream media. As a society there needs to be greater attention to the potential for bias and a concerted effort to enable a variety of artists to succeed and be supported in their craft.
Articles:
Wikipedia, Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing (8 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks:_Shut_Up_and_Sing> at 10 April 2008
Wikipedia, FreeRepublic.com (10 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic> at 10 April 2008
Wikipedia, Natalie Maines (25 March 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Maines> at 10 April 2008
Democracy Now, Shut Up and Sing: Dixie Chick’s Big Grammy Win Caps Comeback From Backlash Over Anti-War Stance (15 February 2007) <http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/15/shut_up_and_sing_dixie_chicks > at 10 April 2008
World Socialist Web Site, Colorado disc jockeys suspended for protesting Dixie Chicks’ ban (9 May 2003) <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/dixi-m09.shtml> at 10 April 2008
NBC6, Radio Jocks Suspended for Playing Dixie Chicks (7 May 2003) <http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/2185232/detail.html> at 10 April 2008
Wikipedia, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (30 March 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed> at 10 April 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
