Andrew Dubber's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
My criteria for “favorite Techdirt blog posts of the week” are necessarily shaped by what I do for a living. As the leader of an MA in Music Industries at Birmingham City University, it’s important for me to understand the key issues shaping the sector in the digital age. Especially since I’m also writing a book on the subject.
But the thing that really interests me (and my students can feel free to recite my mantra along with me here) is that “it’s a discursive practice – and it’s complicated.”
That is to say, if you’re going to analyze what’s going on in the music industries, and particularly where there are tensions about copyright and intellectual property, the discourse is the interesting bit. What people say, and why they say it.
There are some fantastic examples of all sorts of discourse in Techdirt, which excels at locating some extraordinary pieces of rhetoric and unraveling them in the context of a nuanced understanding of copyright law and (perhaps more importantly) the commons in the digital age.
Even better, the rhetoric that is employed within the extensive comments within this site are an absolute goldmine. The people who read and respond to this blog tend to be thoughtful, articulate and passionate. Or hilarious. I’d struggle to think of a richer vein of vested interests, entrenched positions, ethical frameworks, conservative and progressive discourse, parody, urgent political speech, the language of persuasion, argument and ridicule than the comments of Techdirt.
That’s why this website is required reading on my course – as is Music Week, which essentially acts as the centerpiece for major record industry rhetoric in Britain, and could provide a case study in discourse all on its own.
A fascination in what people say about the music industries online – and unpacking why they say it – drives my professional enthusiasm here. So my favorites over the past week will probably come as very little surprise to even the most casual Techdirt reader.
If You’re Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense was an absolute gift to someone like me. Not simply because of the post itself, but because David Lowery from Camper van Beethoven (my favorite of his various musical involvements) weighed in after a while.
He was, it’s fair to say, very, very cross. And while it would be easy to compare his outbursts to a child having a tantrum and dismiss him as a slightly absurd and antiquated figure of blustery, reactionary, sweary fun – it’s important to reconcile this piece of writing with a man who is clearly intelligent in all sorts of ways. An intelligent man who feels attacked and unfairly represented in a very public forum.
There is no reason to expect a rational debate in this context because Lowery is not saying “You have misunderstood my points – allow me to explain them to you,” but “I AM VERY ANGRY!” which is an emotional rather than a rational position.
This is a recurring motif in discussions of intellectual property – and it’s a large part of the reason that every day, there are dozens of stories of people who feel transgressed because not everybody is behaving according to their expectations of how the world should work.
And so the tantrum-filled, door-slamming, feet-stamping, territory-claiming behavior that Techdirt reports on (and which is codified in documents such as ACTA, SOPA and PIPA) is at least understandable as an emotional response which can be characterized as “That’s not fair!” or rather “That’s no longer sufficiently unfair in my favor!”
What people say, and what they mean by it was also the subject of:
Twitter Suspends Four Accounts Critical of Sarkozy: Is This What He Meant By ‘Civilizing’ The Net?;
And if ever there was a case for one’s choice of words being a revealing and significant thing to pay attention to, then If You’re Accused Of Trying To Scam Facebook Out Of 50%+ Of Its Equity, Probably Don’t Have An Email Account Named GetZuck is it.
But perhaps my favorite post of the week is a fairly dry one (sorry Glyn) about ACTA’s compatibility with citizen freedoms as expressed under EU regulations.
What’s so good about the post Trademark Lobby Wants To Help European Court of Justice Forget About EU Citizens’ Rights is that it lifts out the language from a press release, and holds it up to scrutiny. And it asks some pretty important questions that we should be asking about most of the stuff we encounter in this sort of territory.
<
p style=”margin-left:30px;”>What do they say – and how does that measure up to observable reality?
Why do they say what they say?
What is deliberately not said in this context?
Whose interests does this piece of discourse serve?
What doesn’t make sense here – and needs calling out?
Discursive practices, such as the copyright industries (and copyright is, in itself, a piece of discourse), change over time, are different in different places and in different technological, social and cultural contexts. It’s a shifting ground, and you’re never going to be short of people who say extraordinary things, who get angry about what they consider to be their entitlements, and who use language to seek or maintain power.
For that reason, Techdirt is never going to run out of pieces of discourse that need holding up to the light at arm’s length and saying “Really?” to.
We just happened to have a particularly good week of it.
Re: It's nice, but...
I'd be delighted if Ray made a fortune. How mean would I have to be to begrudge him that?
I'm not loaded by any means, but I'm on an okay salary at a university. I have ideas all the time. Most people do. I even teach people to have ideas, and while I was doing this 30 day exercise, I averaged a dozen a day. Most of them were crap - but even the good ones are still just ideas.
I was never going to make this idea or put any further effort into it - so my alternatives were to give it away or throw it away. If I've contributed to culture by telling the world about it - then brilliant.
If Ray makes a lot of money because he had skill, initiative, drive and the willingness to actually DO something, rather than just talk about it as I did - then to claim some kind of ownership over his work seems absurd to me. He deserves every penny he gets.
However, of course, he won't. That's not how the site works.
But the upshot is this: if I keep my ideas to myself, they're worthless. If I give them away, I get a chance to play with the thing I imagined.
After all - they are... just... ideas.
You want to pay me for having ideas, I'll sit here and churn them out all day long. Can't think of anything more fun, actually.
But you ask me to commit to one, sweat night and day over it, spend my own money and time on development and coding (and learning to code!), launching it in the hopes it finds an audience and betting my livelihood on it - then I'll tell you to go find an entrepreneur instead.
The academic rigour of UK Piracy Stats
The best analysis I've seen of the questionable statistics of the music industry was a presentation in January at the London School of Economics by my colleague Dr Nick Webber.
I recorded a video of it, and it's here on the Interactive Cultures website: Research, Public Debate and Online Music
In defence of my 'vitriol'...
...I was REALLY pissed off. :)
I'm sure I could construct a measured and thoughtful argument against the position in a calm and reasonable article, but for now, a rant on my personal blog served to be therapeutic.
Was not really trying to make a convincing argument. Was just trying to say "I'm very, very angry".
Want clear and thoughtful reflection on what's happening in digital culture? Read Techdirt. Want to know what I'm doing, what I find interesting and how I'm feeling? Read my blog. Different texts and contexts for different purposes.
"The RIAA claims to represent artists"
The RIAA represents the recording industry - not artists.
You'd think by now that when they trot out their tired old "the poor artists" lament, people would notice that those are not actually the people whose hands they're trying to get money into.
Incomplete theory
Hugenholtz is right... but it goes further than that.
Extending the term of copyright is bad. That much is clearly true. The next conceptual step that needs to be taken is to consider that reducing the term of copyright is good. As long as:
a) it's renewable; and
b) there's a 'use it or lose it' clause.
I wrote a post recently called How long should music copyright be? where I explain, and argue in favour of a 5 year renewable term.
'Not sufficiently unfair in my favour' does not equal 'not fair'
Glad this has stimulated such vibrant discussion. The terms and details of my provocation are, of course, up for discussion. I happen to like 5 years, but you could make a decent case for 7 (though 10 stretches it beyond the intent of the proposal, I think).
The purpose of this is to reinforce the fundamental basis of copyright: to provide a richer, more vibrant and creative cultural public sphere. Rewarding artists is the means for that to happen - not the end.
This would, of course, transform the political economy of musical works (which always happens when there's a major technological shift - say, from sheet music to recordings on disc) - and I agree that not everyone would be advantaged in the shift.
But I'd have to reinforce here to those who would prefer the status quo: just because a new system is not more unfair in your favour than the previous system - that doesn't make it more unfair in general.
Thanks everyone for giving the idea so much thought.
Technological determinism
There have been two major threads throughout the discussion of online music - both within the record labels themselves, and within the major news organisations who merely cut and paste their press releases.
1) Digital technology kills music industry.
This is usually around a discussion of piracy, downturn of CD sales, etc. Sometimes the story is about how iPods make us antisocial.
2) Digital technology saves music industry
This one has to do with the Next Big Thing that will come to the rescue, though sometimes it's about MySpace causing the Arctic Monkeys, or the idea that web streaming is responsible for Sandi Thom. Podcasting is the saviour of radio too, apparently.
Both positions are, of course, nonsense. Technologies are tools and opportunities. They shift the media environment, but of course we get to decide how we use them and what we use them for.
Site back online
Hi,
Just thought I'd clarify: it looks like a combination of a misbehaving Wordpress plugin and the internet traffic equivalent of a swarm of locusts caused my hosts to decide to take my site offline. Apparently it kept crashing their server.
I've posted an explanation here:
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/06/16/back-online/
Cheers,
Dubber
Universal cannot win this
It's already clear that Universal should not be able to win this legal battle, on the principle of 'blind conduit' (or, in the USA, 'safe harbour'). MySpace fits the definition of an ISP quite nicely. They ask their users not to post illegal content, just as the telephone companies ask their users not to make obscene phone calls. If notified, they act, but they will not patrol.
The more important question for the labels should be about getting a cut of the advertising dollar that NewsCorp makes off every page with music in it. This should be proportional, based on a percentage of revenue -- and distributed through the collection agencies, as is the case with commercial radio.
Suing MySpace and everybody else one at a time is entirely counterproductive, and it stands in the way of making a workable industry practice based on mutual benefit.
Andrew Dubber
New Music Strategies