Name: Kim Timmermans
DOB: 16 August 1982
Residence: Surprisingly clean student flat, Utrecht
Hobbies: film, music, reading, going to the beach, visiting friends abroad
Plans for the future: Becoming rich and famous as the worlds greatest film director
Contact Me
|
|
|
 |
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Fanning vs. the music moguls
Listening to: Float on - Modest Mouse
Finally! I have finished my paper with even one day to spare! Prepare to be baffled (or at least slightly amused....)
Fanning vs. the music moguls
Looking into the entertainment industry's battle against illegal file sharing
Introduction
A few weeks ago it turned out the building I’m living in was one of the largest hubs of illegal activity in the world. Having introduced ‘almost lightning speed’ Internet in the student flats of it’s Tuindorp West complex, housing corporation SSHU found itself the target of a large scale international CIA operation. The final week of April saw a number of police raids on student houses. One particular confiscated hard drive held more than 250 GB of downloaded, and downloadable, files. Aided by peer-to-peer software such as Kazaa and Gnutella it was possible for the hard-working students of the city of Utrecht to build an extensive database of computer files. Although some of these files undoubtedly were innocent essays or home video recordings the vast majority consisted of illegal content: (unreleased) audio recordings, rare bootleg material and so called screeners, films secretly recorded with handheld cameras in cinemas. After the raids the use of the Internet in the area of the Tuindorp complex dropped dramatically. Although it felt quite exciting to be part of such an illegal network the first few days people were hesitant to rebuild the structures of the net. Now, only a few weeks later, the Internet usage has pretty much returned to what it used to be. Apparently there is no stopping P2P technology.
Although it is understandable why the entertainment business would want to stop pirate material spreading through the Internet – let’s face it, it is copyright infringement – it might be worth everyone’s while to look for other options to implement P2P technology into the so-called Establishment. Instead of spending thousands of Dollars, Euros and Pounds, not to mention valuable time and energy, on trying to stop people from downloading copyrighted files it might be more efficient to find ways in which the entertainment business and their consumers can work together in creating a structure of P2P which is beneficial for both parties. Why try to prevent people from using P2P software when you can make a quick buck out of it?
This paper looks at some of the implications of P2P technology from both a technological and a social viewpoint. Part I concentrates on some of the free P2P software that is already out there, such as Kazaa and Gnutella, to answer the question what exactly constitutes as P2P. Part II will examine what kinds of alternatives have already been established in terms of paid file sharing. How has the entertainment industry tried to stop P2P technology and what are the alternatives they have come up with? Here we will look at the famous Napster injunction and P2P networks such as I-Tunes. In Part III we will turn to future developments. What does the future hold for P2P and what kind of solutions are possible to keep both the recording industry as well as entertainment consumers happy?
PART I – P2P: Peer-to-what?
In order for us to appreciate exactly what it is that we are discussing here it is important to come to an understanding about what constitutes as peer-to-peer. Basically any interaction between two people without the interference of a third party, be it a moderator or a computer server, could be perceived as P2P. Two people having a conversation, exchange thoughts and information without the involvement of an external medium and are therefore communicating on a P2P level. Obviously this is not the kind of P2P this paper focuses on. Fortunately, having a conversation isn’t considered illegal whichever way you look at it in our Western society. P2P within the context of computer technology more often than not, is associated with felonious activity. When defining what P2P is in the context of the Internet and software technology it becomes a little bit trickier. There are a number of ideas and theories surrounding the definition of P2P.
According to Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier there are three ways in which to talk about the meaning of P2P (Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier, 2003). In their article, Business Model Peer-to-Peer – Is there a future beyond file sharing?, they divide approaching P2P into three separate components: technology, service and content, and organisation. In my opinion P2P can’t be placed simply in one or the other category, but is a mixture of the first two elements. My reasons for excluding the final factor will be explained later.
From a technological point of view P2P is the opposite of server-client networks: “In a P2P system all nodes dispose of resources and contribute to the network, peers interact unintermediated with peers, and contents, connections and members are nonpersistent.” (Id.). Having said that, hardly any networks conform to this definition of P2P. Some networks such as Gnutella can be considered P2P according to this definition but pure P2P networks are simply hard to find. There are however a large number of hybrid P2P systems, including Napster, Kazaa and eDonkey. Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier: “In those networks, there are servers that take crucial roles as directory server or in joining a network.” (Id.). Some computers are designated the role of super node and regulate downloading activity within a region of computers.
Oram explains P2P in the following way: “Peer-to-peer describes a decentralized network in which all computers function as equals.” (Oram, 1998). Although rightly labelling P2P as decentralized, Oram’s claim that all computers are equal is a little of the mark. Bandwidth, hardware and implementations differ between users of the same network. Using a modem to download files is going to take a lot longer than the use of a cable connection will. While everyone has equal access to the network it remains to be seen whether everyone is equal within its framework. It seems all computers are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Shirky approaches P2P slightly differently. He sees it as “a network topology with dynamic configuration and (…) dynamically changing network addresses.” (Shirky, 1998). Change is the keyword in Shirky’s description. Shirky considers Napster to be P2P, because
“the addresses of Napster nodes bypass the DNS system [Domain Name System, which translates a www.-address into an IP address], and because once the Napster server resolves the IP addresses of the PCs hosting a particular song, it shifts control of the file transfers to the nodes.” (Shirky, 2000).
In our discussion of what P2P is, this complements the earlier assumption of P2P networks being decentralized perfectly.
However, there are more factors to be taken into account. Having dealt with the technological aspects of P2P, we now turn to the second characteristic: service and content. As stated above I find service and content to be only one part of the equation, but Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier judge systems solely on this criteria to see whether they are P2P: “(…) what matters to the customer is the value proposition ‘access to contents’ and the interface to the service”. (Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier, 2003). Instead of an outside body (i.e. a record company) producing, marketing and distributing the material, all this is done by the consumers themselves using a P2P network. In case of music recordings, the artist produces a song, which is then spread by a P2P system, which produces copies. Via word of mouth or viral marketing the files are distributed through the network, where consumers are able to comprise their own databases of music or even alter recordings, creating new audio files. Granted, this does constitute P2P, but to call it the sole definition would be insufficient.
Lechner, Hummel and Eikemeier introduce a third category by which to identify P2P: the organisational view. This aspect deals with peer motivation, peer rights and peer obligations. Although thought-provoking it is largely impossible to answer the question as to why people share files. Reasons for sharing a file or even knowledge don’t qualify a network as being P2P. There are an infinite number of reasons to share. People might want to feel part of a community and join a P2P network. Then again, some people watch television to feel part of a group; that doesn’t mean television is P2P. Furthermore, peer rights and obligations can differ from network to network. Most networks allow their peers to download as many files as they want without having to upload data, some require peers to trade files in a ‘tit-for-tat kind of way’.
What these objections to the organisational view boil down to is the fact that a network qualifies as P2P according to its technological and architectural structures. Kazaa for instance works in the following way:
“Kazaa uses peer-to-peer technology. This means that individual users connect to each other directly, without need for a central point of management. All you need to do is install Kazaa and it will connect you to other KMD users. (…) Kazaa Media Desktop allows you to search and download content that is shared by (…) other Kazaa Media Desktop users. [And] ‘kreate’ your own files and distribute them using Kazaa Media Desktop. (…) The P2P searches occur through users with fast connections, called Supernodes. Once located, the file is sourced for downloading directly from the user who has it.” (http://www.kazaa.com/us/help/quickstart.htm, 21 June 2004).
Although Kazaa requires the use of super nodes, everyone in the network can reach each peer. This makes the network decentralised and enables the use of dynamic addresses. In addition, users can upload their own files, thus creating autonomous consumers as discussed in the service and content characteristic.
While these technologies can be extremely useful to the music-loving public, the entertainment industry is less enthusiastic. The next section deals with the reasons why and what the industry has done to try and regulate P2P networks.
PART II – Industry-to-peer-to-peer-to-industry
The major issue concerning file sharing is, of course, copyright infringement. Although laws vary from country to country, most nations adhere to regulations similar to those of the United States:
“Copyright is the protection of the original expression of an idea, whether it is expressed in the form of music, a painting, or written material. (…) In civil cases copyright infringement can occur whether or not money was exchanged for the music, and in criminal cases there only needs to be a possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder or financial gain to the infringer.” (http://www.riaa.com/issues/music/downup.asp, 22 June 2004).
“Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.” (http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp, 22 June 2004).
The record industry’s initial response to the popularity of P2P file sharing programs was to sue the living daylights out of Napster. On 6 December 1999 a number of record labels sued Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. On 12 February 2001 Napster was confirmed to have violated copyright laws. After the court’s ruling Napster was set clear rules and regulations:
“(…) record labels would be held responsible for informing Napster of the artists and song titles to which they held copyrights. Upon receiving notice of a particular copyrighted file, Napster would be given three business days to remove the file and all identical files from its directory.” (Strahilevitz, 2004).
However, this didn’t make its users “second-guess the morality of their actions.” (Id.). They found ingenious ways to circumvent the rules. Ironically, the lawsuit had an inverse effect for the first few weeks after the courts ruling. All the surrounding media attention caused people to start using Napster en masse. At the same time, people used Napster’s discussion fora to promote other file sharing networks.
The prime audience of Napster consisted of teenagers and college students. For them being part of the Napster community felt like a natural thing to do. For this generation Napster provided them with a method of rebelling against the Establishment, the way their parents had done through protest rallies and sit-ins. What better way to do this simultaneously with millions of like-minded people? Consequently, herein lies the crux of the matter:
“Because the law and the federal judges who interpret it command less respect among teenagers than among the public at large, the [court’s ruling] could not tap into a base of good will among many Napster users. (…) On the basis of the injunction-circumvention experience, many of these teenagers have been socialised to believe that the copyright laws and courts are largely ineffectual, and that non-compliance with the spirit of the law is socially acceptable.” (Id.).
Apparently, court action wasn’t the way to go. Looking back at the days of the Napster ruling, the record industry has learned if nothing else:
“[That t]he porous Napster injunction emboldened hackers and users alike, convincing them that while the courts could deal a setback to the file-swapping movement, the government could never eradicate it.” (Id.).
Instead, the entertainment industry had to search for different means of eliminating the downside of P2P file sharing. The first sabotaging of P2P networks by the industry in conjunction with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) worked by uploading incomplete or inferior copies into the network. Although many people who use P2P networks on a regular basis come across these files from time to time, to the disappointment of the entertainment industry, they haven’t led to the abandonment of the technology. Again it seems the Establishment will have to look for other means to compete with free downloading.
One way of doing this has been to launch alternative hybrid-P2P networks controlled by the record companies themselves. One such network is I-Tunes which consists of a large database of audio material available for downloading at 99¢ per song. What the music industry has tried to do here is to entice people into paying for the music they download instead of hijacking it. Although this network does provide a legal means to download copyrighted files, I think it unlikely this will become a serious competitor for P2P networks such as Kazaa and Gnutella. Why pay for something, when you can get it for free? Despite threats of legal action and ‘dirty files’, P2P software such as Kazaa is still more attractive.
To this end, let us look towards the future to see some of the possible solutions for this conundrum.
PART III – Peer into the future
Finally realising that P2P is here to stay, the entertainment industry started looking for solutions to the conflict between their desires and those of the downloading public. A research initiative of the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, the Digital Media Project tries to find such solutions. So far they have come up with five distinct scenarios for the future. Their first strategy, the self-explanatory ‘no-change scenario’, is their most naive one. Having already established that changes have to be made, trying to hold on to a system that obviously does not work is a waste of time.
Consequently, the other four scenarios are much more interesting, starting with the ‘speedbumps scenario for digital media’. This scenario “forecasts that a combination of technological, legal, and social restrictions can be implemented to allow for the commercial success of online media services” (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario2, 24 June 2004). The main question the research team has asked itself is: “What will it take to recreate a culture where music is regarded as something you pay for?” (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitalmedia/nesson_hsia_overview.html, 24 June 2004). Obviously this is a hard question to answer. As we have already seen it is difficult to get people to pay for something they can get for free elsewhere. I-Tunes and similar initiatives do try however to create a niche for themselves within the downloading market.
According to their own words the way the speedbump scenario works is fourfold: “(a) offer entertainment products on terms that no longer leave many people feeling like suckers, (b) create tech impediments to unauthorized copying which, though not perfect, at least impose speed bumps sufficient to make illicit free file-sharing difficult for those who lack skill, time and determination, (c) set legal risks credible enough to deter the timid and affirm the instincts of those who are normally law-abiding, and (d) educate public designed to sensitize consumers to the viewpoint of artists who need to make a commercial return on what they produce.” (Id.). Although they make valid points, I feel this scenario is not enough for the current Internet user. People are getting more and more professional in utilizing the possibilities the Internet offers to them and it is naïve to think a few bumps along the way are going to deter them from downloading music illegally.
The third option would be a variation on the speedbump scenario, namely the ‘technological lockdown scenario’, which “forecasts that legal constraints and DRM [digital rights management] systems result in copyright holders’ total control of digital media.” (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario3, 24 June 2004). Although this is probably the most desirable scenario from the point of view of the entertainment business, it feels rather Orwellian to hand over all control of digital media to the entertainment business. There should always remain a domain of which everyone can be a part and keep discourses flowing.
The ‘alternative compensation system scenario’ uses a system of taxing people for their downloads. “The system has two basic premises: first, registration of a creative work, and second, a tax to generate funding for the initiative.” (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario4, 24 June 2004). Consumers are charged based on their downloading activity and artists are rewarded based on the number of times their works are downloaded by the public. This way all issues of copyright are circumvented. The tax could even be charged over computer hardware or software, in a similar vein to the tax we’re already paying on cassette and video tapes.
The final scenario, called the ‘entertainment co-op scenario’ “mirrors the idea of a state-run alternative compensation system except that participation would be voluntary: creators would choose to register their works with a private organization, and the system's funding would come from members' subscription fees.” (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario5, 24 June 2004). Although this system does offer a more independent and impartial way of regulating music downloads than the previous scenario, it is much more vulnerable to fraud due to its voluntary nature.
Conclusion
In this paper I have tried to give a brief sketch of the wonderful world of P2P file sharing. Part I focussed on the definition of P2P, settling on decentralised networks that create autonomous users through dynamic IP-addresses. As an example we looked at the P2P software of Kazaa.
Part II dealt with the legal complications springing from the mass use of P2P file sharing. The entertainment industry sued Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Unfortunately for the record companies, the media hype surrounding the Napster court case caused people to start using P2P software on a much larger scale than was previously the case. Although Napster eventually collapsed because of rules and regulations that were set after the court’s ruling, the industry realised something different had to be undertaken to deal with the popularity of P2P.
Part III tried to give a short outline of possible scenarios for the future. Digital Media Project’s Alternative compensation system scenario seems to be the best one Harvard Law School has come up with so far. Of course it is essential that more research is done in the nearby future regarding implications of already exciting scenarios and any probable new ones. Even though this aspect of P2P is still in its infancy, we shouldn’t underestimate the potential of this technology.
Reference List
Lechner, U., J. Hummel and C. Eikemeier, (2003) Business Model Peer-to-Peer: Is there a future beyond file sharing?.
Oram, A., (ed) (1998) Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies. O’Reilly.
Shirky, C. (1998) Listening to Napster. In Oram, A. (ed) Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies. O’Reilly.
Shirky, C. (2000) What is P2P… And What isn’t (http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/a/472).
Strahilevitz, L.J. (2004) Charismatice Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Coopertion on the File-Swapping Networks (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html).
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitalmedia/nesson_hsia_overview.html, 24 June 2004.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario2, 24 June 2004.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario3, 24 June 2004.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario4, 24 June 2004.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/scenario5, 24 June 2004.
http://www.kazaa.com/us/help/quickstart.htm, 21 June 2004.
http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp, 22 June 2004.
http://www.riaa.com/issues/music/downup.asp, 22 June 2004.
Posted at 4:14:14 pm by kimeen
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress - Gandhi
Listening to: The passenger - Iggy Pop
Useful stuff
Due to an enormous work load from other courses I'm taking at the moment I only found time to look for relevant articles and such for my final paper today. I did stumble upon some very interesting things while surfing the Net - or googling as it is called nowadays.
As stated before (Thursday May 6th) I want to concentrate on the possibilities that condoning (music) file sharing provide to consumers and the music industry. In particular, I want to investigate how the music industry can create goodwill by allowing people to up- and download music. In addition to goodwill for the companies it will also help new or even established artists to gain public awareness.
The articles that I have found so far include commentaries from both sides of the spectrum: producers, consumers, the RIAA and RIAA boycots. I have listed them on the side bar.
Obviously I haven't had time to read every single webpage/article but from glancing over them I feel there's enough information there to help me write my paper and support my thesis:
Allowing files sharing through peer-to-peer networks such as KaZaA will benefit both the music industry and its consumers.
Posted at 7:15:42 pm by kimeen
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Reach out and touch someone
Listening to: Steve Lamacq on Radio One
What is P2P...And what isn’t? – Clay Shirky (2000)
The P2P Report – Emelie Rutherford (2000)
After reading these articles I felt I understood less of what P2P is then before Shirky tried to explain it. Consequently, I don’t have any critical questions accompanied by my own answers, just two questions I would like to be answered.
What are DNS systems exactly?
Shirky writes: ‘(…) Intel’s “server peer-to-peer” is not P2P, because servers have always been peers. Their fixed IP adrdresses and permanent connections present no new problems, and calling what they already do “peer-to-peer” presents no new solutions.’ This statement is completely unclear to me. Does something have to present new problems and solutions to be P2P?
A Plague of Viruses: Biological, Computer and Marketing – J. Boase and B. Wellman (2001)
Although their analogy between biological and computer viruses works quite well I disagree with them that viral marketing can be put in the same category. There are simply too many differences between the former two and the latter. Viral marketing might spread similarly to other viruses and therefore its name is justified but unlike biological and computer viruses there is no prevention – unless you are a complete hermit – and it is not necessarily an unwelcome thing. I refuse to believe spreading disease or destruction can be compared to spreading fashions.
It’s a little unclear to me how free sites can disappear which Boase and Wellman claim is an economic consequence from viral marketing.
Posted at 8:50:13 am by kimeen
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
When you've got it, flaunt it, flaunt it! - The Producers (1968)
Listening to: BBC Radio One
From consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access - Y. Benkler (2000)
Even though I applaud the optimistic viewpoint that Benkler obviously wants to share with his reader I wonder if there shouldn’t be some sort of regulatory body. Surely there are also sides to the Internet that shouldn’t get out of hand or even be completely banned: child pornography, etc.
Q Are we utterly subject to the will of large ICT-corporations such as AOL?
A Even though laws have become stricter I’m sure there will always be people or groups or even entire networks which will figure out a way to ‘cheat the system’. Ironically, with higher security measures it becomes even more attractive to hackers and underground movement to ‘break the code’.
There have always been and will probably always be underground movements trying to struggle free from the grip of mainstream multi-nationals. A good example of this us the free open source software like LINUX competing with software giant Microsoft. Although Microsoft still pretty much holds a monopoly position on the market, LINUX has been around for quite a while now and it doesn’t look like it won’t be able to compete with the Bill Gates emporium for years to come.
Should it become impossible to use the Internet to express oneself or participate in the public domain, I’m sure people will find new ways of keeping the debate alive.
The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world - L. Lessig (2001)
Referring to Amazon.com Lessig writes: ‘(…) I doubt any of your friends knows your tastes in music and books as well as Amazon knows mine. Amazon knows, based on real data’ (page 11-12). I’m worried that this technology will narrow peoples perception of what is out there if they completely rely on Amazon to tell them what they want and need. Shouldn’t it be up to ourselves to decide what we want? I have a very eclectic taste in music: rock, pop, classical, dance, drum&bass, jazz, etc. Besides that it is subject to change as I get older. I don’t think Amazon could capture my music taste in a few hyperlinks.
I would have liked to have seem some solutions as to how the 'old' can be succesfully integrated with the 'new'. There must be ways to reconcile the producers with the consumers.
I also have a little question regarding some of the content of the article:
What does e2e stand for exactly?
Watching the Internet - D. Harries (2002)
It is a little unclear to me what the difference is between interactive games and 'viewsing' sites such as the one from De Bus. Aren't they both interactive? Aren't using the Internet and viewsing the Internet the same thing?
Harries writes '(...) when you consider consider the amount of interactivity involved in accessing a Web page through a browser (...) you begin to realise how little interactivity there really is'. I absolutely agree. It seems interactivity nowadays is seen as the ultimate goal as if interactivity is all we as 'viewsers' could wish for or want out of media. Sometimes being a passive viewer can be just as entertaining. How else can we explain the success of computer games adapted to the silver screen such as the Tomb Raider films? Posted at 10:26:01 am by kimeen
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side
Listening to: The sound of Utrecht waking up
What is organisational culture? - L. Küng-Shanklemanc (2000)
Q On page 15 Küng-Shanklemanc explains Schein's model of cultural inheritance within a company:
“The group behaves in a certain way based on the founder’s beliefs and values, and either succeeds or fails;
(…) If it succeeds, and this process repeats itself, the founder’s beliefs, values and assumptions come to be validated in the shared experiences of the group.”
Will the group always follow the set of beliefs and values held by the founder?
A To me this seems highly unlikely; that way there would be no room or possibility for change. A related question could be whether we’re dealing with the Marxist concept of ideology or the Gramsci concept of hegemony. Gramsci expands Marx’s idea of ideology and introduces hegemony, which he posits as a ‘constant contradiction between ideology and the social experience of the subordinate that makes this interface into an inevitable site of ideological struggle' (Fiske 1992: 291). My preference goes out to hegemony. Otherwise the lower classes (in a company represented by the common workers) could never change the policies and mission of the company. I feel they can influence the assumptions a company has by for instance going on strike.
Dimensions of culture - M. de Mooij (1998)
This article was very clear and so I don't have any questions, rather some notes:
In my view there must be more categories by which to define a countries culture. Culture is such a part of our lives, to me, it seems impossible to define it in five simple categories. Culture is what it is because of many more factors. Perhaps De Mooij should have thought of the way a culture deals with age, history, political systems or religion. Having said that, I found it a very interesting and informative article.
In how far are the examples given still correct? Haven’t there been many changes since the publication of this article. Natural disasters, war or a change of government might change the way a people look at life.
Also, I found the assumptions quite stereotypical. Obviously there is some truth in all of this – stereotypes have to come from somewhere – but the fact of the matter is that even regionally or locally there are many differences between cultures. Compare outgoing southern people (Noord-Brabant, Limburg) to more reserved people in the north of The Netherlands (Groningen, Friesland).
It would have been helpful had De Mooij explained some of the differences between advertisements from different countries. Perhaps she does this in a later chapter but now it seems that she only mentions there are huge differences but it never becomes clear what those differences exactly are.
Advertising Cultures - S. Nixon (2003)
Q Is the culturising of goods in Western societies really something that has only been happening since the post-modern are?
A Going back as far as prehistoric Man there has always been art. Human beings have always sought for symbols to communicate feelings or represent certain abstract aspects of life. Perhaps today it is happening on a far grander scale than ever before as economies flourish but even extremely impoverished peoples and nations use aesthetic ways to express themselves and form their own identity. When we look at countries destroyed by war or decease there’s still music and theatre there.
We’re moving towards an era of re-enlightenment; a Re-Renaissance if you will. Knowledge was seen as the most important of all goods in Ancient Greece and Egypt for instance. Possibly we can learn something about our own age by looking back at the transformation in culture that took place in the Western world around the time of the Enlightenment.
Posted at 9:45:01 am by kimeen
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Listening to: Chariots rise - Lizzie West
With the advent of the Internet came numerous possibilities for us - the common user - to utilise powerful technologies. One such option is the downloading of sound files. Although as of late this has mostly been in the news as a negative aspect of said network, there are also some positive sides to it as well. Personally I feel this has been overshadowed by large media conglomerates suing private persons left and right. Perhaps it is time to make the big corporations see that music file sharing can be used to their advantage.
As a case study I'll be using American music artist Howie Day who encourages his fans to make DAT-recordings at his concerts and share these with other people through the Internet, greatly expanding his fan base.
Although I'm not completely sure what main question I would like to answer in my paper there are some subjects that are relevant to this topic. Among them are:
- how much the music industry is hurt by file sharing, peer-2-peer networks, bootlegs, etc.
- the aspect of goodwill created by allowing file sharing
- ways in which the music industry can implement legal file sharing into their business or advertising strategies
- possibilities or consequences for fan-communities
Posted at 6:14:17 pm by kimeen
Monday, May 03, 2004
Listening to: Did Galileo pray? - Ellis Paul
Geographies of the information society - M. Dodge & R. Kitchin (2001)
Q According to Dodge en Kitchin with the advent of cyberspace we hardly share any historical conciousness with the people who are geographically close to us. Isn't this a little harsh?
A Here I have to refer to Queen's Day again (and with any luck upcoming Independence Day). The multitude of people who feel the need to share these national holidays with the people that live close by is a sure sign that the social connection we feel with others – even virtual strangers – is still present.
Q Do we really need cyberspace to create a global community?
A I’m wondering won't something like the formation of the EU already homogenise global culture. Perhaps we’re already creating some sort of United States of Europe in which it will become harder and harder to distinguish between countries. I feel it is important to use certain countermeasures to preserve the characteristics of national and local cultures alike. A good example of how to do this could be the radio policy employed by the French government. In France it is legally compulsory to air a certain minimum of French artists and music. This helps to keep the distinctive character of France and its language alive.
»» I'm sort of unable to formulate a critical question but the subject of Chapter III did intrigue me and kept me thinking. Having studied astronomy for a while it all seemed wonderfully familiar. It made me wonder if studying the properties of cyberspace might be able to help us understand more about the (physical) laws of outer space especially in relation to black holes and their singularity, where there is timeless time and placeless space (or not :o) as well.
On a lighter note...
Wanting to get away from the whole global community and everyone in it?
Introvertster
Posted at 4:24:51 pm by kimeen
What is society coming to?
Listening to: Morning after - Howie Day
The Communicative Affordances of Technological Artefacts - I. Hutchby (2001)
Q Hutchby says in his article that he tries not to 'assume that an era of "technologized interaction" is already upon us. However, this is a very interesting question to ask ourselves. Are we already living in a world that is shaped by technologized communications?
A Obviously this is true; it's virtually impossible for inhabitant of Western society to function properly in this community without the use of communication technologies. Still we shouldn't jump the gun here and assume that our whole way of life is based on these technologies. Although the Internet has become a very much present and useful way of communicating with people it is clear that we need more than that. Face-to-face communication still plays an important part in our social interactions. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of people that took to the streets last Saturday to celebrate Queen's Day. We need other people and we need to be around other people, not just a computer screen and a fast modem connection.
Q Hutchby asks his reader whether the actor-network theory is the way to go. What are my feelings about this theory?
A I have serious doubts about using this particular theory. Because everything (people and material goods alike) can been seen as an actor in a particular process humans are reduced to being a cog in the machine. Shouldn't the basis of all science be the need for insight into the real world around us, making human beings the starting point of this exploration?
Q The last question that came to mind after reading this article was the following: Is the reality of artefacts something that imposes itself on the passive human user?
A This is a very difficult question to answer. Hutchby cleverly avoids having to answer at all by saying: 'It is none of these things' (page 33). He utilises the concept of affordances to circumvent the question in its entirety. This doesn't change much about the fact that it is an interesting discussion subject. Is the way we see things decided for by our own perception of the world or by the intrinsic properties of the world around us? Unfortunately I don't have an answer either. I think it must lie somewhere between the two extremes I have just mentioned. Further philosophical research into this subject will be needed.
On a lighter note...
Having undoubtedly thoroughly enjoyed the H2O assignment about mobile phone advertising, feast your eyes and ears on this.
Critical questions for the second text to follow shortly...
Posted at 2:46:11 pm by kimeen
Monday, April 26, 2004
I don't live to work, I work to live, and live at the weekend
Listening to: Michael - Franz Ferdinand
Economic perspectives - H. Vogel (2001)
First I want to start off by saying that I found it rather difficult to ascertain the importance of this text in comparison with the overall course especially because I never took economy in high school and many of the terms used in the text are completely foreign to me. However, I did try to formulate some sort of critique on Vogel's article.
Q Doesn't Vogel overlook a very important aspect which determines the way in which people balance work and leisure time?
A I am of the opinion that the social attitudes that a society has at a certain time in history is a very important element that determines the way people look at leisure time. During the Eighties there was a rather dominant trend towards capitalism and commercialism. Nowadays we might be moving towards a society in which spirituality and health are more important than monetary motives. Happiness is measured less by income and more by the choices we make in life.
Perhaps certain technologies such as the Internet can help us with the way in which we structure our life around leisure because they can provide us with more free time.
On a lighter note...
Posted at 3:52:19 pm by kimeen
Listening to: Pink bullets - The Shins
Interactive audiences? - Henry Jenkins
Q Do the new possibilities offered by media such as the Internet give its consumers more freedom or is this simply an illusion?
A We're dealing here with a subject extensively covered by Fiske and Adorno. Adorno claims that media consumers are always going to be dominated by the media. He sees it as impossible to escape the grip and influence the media have on our lives and actions. Fiske is less pessimistic. He acknowledges the influence or power the media can have over its consumers but at the same time gives them a voice. According to Fiske media consumers take elements of the culture imposed on them by those same media and use those elements to create their own reality. I'm going to have to agree with Fiske. I refuse to believe that we are simply little sheep following the media sheppard.
Have technologies developed in recent years given us more freedom, though? Perhaps it feels like that. We are able to find virtually any information at the touch of a buttom. Unfortunately the Internet and similar technologies have also greatly speeded up our way of life. To be part of society people have to be on top of things 24/7. In a way this imprisons us.
At the same time society is structured in a way that makes us extremely reliant on (electronic) technologies. Should all of that fail society as we know it would crumble to dust.
The following is not so much a critical question as more a criticism on Jenkins. On page 2 he summerizes Levy: [He] explores how the 'deterritorialization' of knowledge, brought about by the ability of the net and the web to facilitate rapid many-to-many communication, might enable broader participation in decision-making, new modes of citizenship and community, and the reciprocal exchange of information.
The point they fail to see is that eventhough millions of people are connected via the internet, at the same time millions of people aren't. More and more people are divided not only through race, sex or geography but also through connectivity. I find it rather naive to state that everyone can be a part of the global network that Jenkins and Levy speak of. Senior citizens, women, the unemployed, Third World countries; all of these have difficulty being part of the 'system'.
Q Jenkins speaks very highly of the fact that it's becoming more and more possible for audiences to influence the programs they watch. Is this influence a good thing?
A Obviously for a fan it is great to be involved in the shaping of the show you love. However there is also something to be said for the creativity of the artist. Shouldn't art - and by art I mean not just high Art but also popular culture - be about 'what the public needs' instead of 'what the public wants'? If everything is going to be decided for by the general public every television program, magazine or book will be an average of different opinions. That way we run the risk of creating a world in which everything is a neat average. The things the public needs can't be determined by the public itself but should be up to the producers and artist to figure out.
It should be noted however that said producers and artist should work from a commercial starting point but rather adopt an artistic attitude for this to succeed.
On a lighter note....
The lenghts Burger King will go to to amuse its consumers....
Have it your way
Posted at 10:21:30 am by kimeen
|
|
|
