Hi all,
have done my reading and am focusing here on the Hesmondhalgh article (I've finally worked out how to spell his name). It seems to me he has a clear perspective that provides a deeper analysis of the "debates" around music and file sharing.
He suggests that the debates around file-sharing put forward by "the prophets of techno-capitalism" or by Left-leaning musicians miss the point -- what are their respective points or beliefs? He believes the debates in fact emerge from a clash of two powerful entities. "Unpack" his points and reflect on whether you agree with his conclusion.
Although I think he is pretty hip, the article is now older and refers to the realities on the ground (and in cyperspace) in the mid to late 2000s. Take up some of his descriptive points and "update" them. For example, he compares how Europe/North American purchased online music and Asia through mobile phones. Is that still the case do you think?
And how far, from your anecdotal position, do you think that digital sales have eroded CD and DVDs sales?
What models of controls of file sharing imposed by the music industries have you come across and are any effective to your knowledge?
Finally, if anyone understands the implications of the new copyright laws in New Zealand, it would be great to hear them spelled out.
I'm posting a comment as a test as Alistair's was swallowed up. Hmm, can anyone suggest why? It seems better through Safari that Firefox. I note that Hesmondalgh makes a comment on copyright that could pertain to NZ, that "protecting" artists copyright seems to benefit corporate interests and not the artist. Interesting. Also his points feed into the discussion of "creative industries" we were going to have. I go to Dunedin for the day tomorrow to show my film at the film festival but "severe weather" is predicted so I hope I get back for class.
ReplyDeleteFrom what i understood, the new copyright laws applied only to file sharing, which is pretty much applicable to P2P sites and softwares such as Limewire, BitTorrent and so on. Illegal online streaming is not included. We can still use online file lockers, such as RapidShare and mega upload, to download. According to relevant authority, Online file lockers and Streaming is not incorporated into the laws because they assumed that the owners of the copyright have more control over such means.
ReplyDeleteAn analogy here will be helpful to illustrate the differences between online streaming and downloading P2P materials directly : Downloading the item itself online is like stealing something straight away from the store; whereas online Streaming is like us walking into Borders to read their books without necessarily buying them, and they (Borders) actually inviting us to read their books in store as well. Hopefully that helps to clarify any questions about whether streaming online can be prosecuted under the new copyrights law.
In general, Hesmondhalgh's article is good and clear. But some cases he mentioned come from "old times" and do not best describe the current situation. In addition, some of his opinions may not be universally true.
ReplyDeleteWhen he talked about file-sharing, he mentions Napster and other networks which were "commercial enterprises, supported by advertising, and usually backed by venture capital". Well, it was ture in the past, but may not at present. Just think about BT/eMule, the software which is usually open-source and free for everyone, based on which the decommercialised and decentralised P2P file-sharing network is built, developed and maintained by (anonymous) netizens rather than commercial enterprises, without any venture capital or commercial advertising.
ReplyDeleteIn the age of Napster, P2P software & network could be easily closed down by a lawsuit. But now, whom are you going to charge? Thousands or even millions of netizens who use P2P network from every corner of the world? There's no commercial company and no leader behind today's P2P file-sharing network like BT/eMule, instead every user contributes a little to it while benefits from it. More important, there's no (single and stable) central node in this network, which means it's not easy to destroy it using technical methods. From this point of view, nowadays P2P networks are quite different from Napster and its others mentioned in Hesmondhalgh's work.
ReplyDeleteHere is another case.
ReplyDeleteSeveral major telecommunications service providers in China, each of which has millions of users, once tried to block P2P apps because P2P consumed too much bandwidth and significantly increased the burdern of physical telecommunication networks. However, these companies failed as a result of the great boom of P2P software and the rapid increase in numbers of users. Thus they had to find other ways, such as improve/develop their hardware/physical networks, to satisfy the need of users rather than ignore or deny it .
In this case, it was not the cultural & creative industries, but the telecommunications companies tried to stop P2P networks, now the most popular, effective, and source-rich online file-sharing networks. In addition, today loads of companies, schools, and other institutions all around the world still prohibit P2P apps in their own local area networks (LANs) because the high consumption of bandwidth of the software heavily affects daily online-working.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, not all prohibition of file-sharing comes from cultural & creative industries and deals with copyright issues. When it's not, the situation is no longer what Hesmondhalgh described as cultural & creative industries VS. telecommunications & IT sectors. It is noticeable that in the following part of the article, his discussion also shows the practice & possibilities of music industries work with IT/telecommunications companies to create a new digital market.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, the examples in my previous posts demonstrate that Hesmondhalgh's argument concerning file-sharing is only partially, but not universally true.
ReplyDeleteI've tried two hours to post my comments! The blog just keeps swallowing them up! Then I break my comment down into seven small pieces and post only one of them at a time. It works! I hope they won't be swallowed up again.
ReplyDeleteIf you have the same problem when posting comment, try to break it down into small pieces, then try again. I'm not sure the problem really lies in the length of comment, but just try it. I hope it will work for everyone. Good luck!
Very thorough analysis of the Hesmondhalgh article, Wei. While a lack of a central node makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put an end to file-sharing, I believe the 3-strikes piracy law in effect on 1st September, at best, will at least serve as a possible deterrent for those individuals unwilling to risk the loss of their internet service for free music. This will be minimal, of course, as studies have shown that the 3-strikes legislation currently in place in France (Hadopi) has simply caused pirates to use alternate methods which are not tracked, such as the online file lockers Joe mentions.
ReplyDeleteLooking at it now, the Hesmondhalgh article seems quite prescient in its general arguments. I fully concur with him that technological determinism is too narrow an approach and that digitalisation should be looked at in its broader contexts. What's encouraging is that this is what is happening at the moment but at the same time this is a double-edged sword as exemplified by the to-be-soon-implemented copyright law in NZ. It is indeed disheartening to see the real purpose of copyright (stimulation of creativity) being sacrificed for the protection of the big corporates.
ReplyDeleteFor me personally iTunes has been a great boon and my illegal downloading has been cut in half ever since. With me the issue was Indian music, it is very hard to find Indian cd's in NZ and if you do find them, the collection is pretty archaic. The only reason I downloaded was to get new songs as soon as they came in the Indian market. But even then, having an affinity for originals, I did eventually buy the cd's when they became available here (2-3 months after). So perhaps if the music market here was on par then I would not have had to resort to such "criminal" means. Nowadays I get all my Indian music through iTunes and I really have no urge to illegally download anymore.
ReplyDeleteoh my god ，where is my comments ，I have posted it one hour ago but It is disappeard
ReplyDeletewell，type it one more time……the first question ,I think it is still the case ,but I think it may not useful for somebody, for example ,in CHina ,a sea of websites offer ringtone for charged ,but actually ,audiences can get music easily from internet and make them to ringtone,so seldom of people will pay for the music.
ReplyDeleteI don't think MP3 or digital will erode CD,take me as an example ,I will buy the CDs of my favourate singers although I can download the music via internet easily ,in that case ,the CD can be seen as a souviour or collection ,just like the poster etc.
I think the most important way of control is change the mode of communication,for example ,there is a very popular software in china called KUGOO(cool dog),which is used for share music by P2P，but after I entered in NZ,I found it didnot work any more,after searched online ,I found that the way of transite document is different in NZ and China ...In that case ,we cannot use it for share music.
I don't know too much about the new law ,I just heard that there is a big fine for illegal download,but I think it is impractical because it is hard to supervise.
In regards to WangKun's comment about CDs serving as collectors' items, I fully understand that. Many of us are from a generation that value the record-buying experience (physical records as opposed to online ones). Ripping off the plastic, reading the lyrics and liner notes, and scanning the booklet artwork all contributed to this experience... but there is a new generation of consumers emerging who only know music in its digital form, which surely indicates the compact disc will meet the same demise as 8-tracks and cassette tapes.
ReplyDeleteHesmondhalgh makes it pretty clear at the start of his article that “the music industries attempt to make profit out of producing and circulating goods and services based on acts of symbolic creativity”. His arguments sit very much on the fence surrounding the issues of file-sharing and the threats major music companies were confronted with (and continue to be confronted with today) at the time. Because the article referred to the early years of P2P file-sharing (Napster and Kazaa in the early 2000s); it doesn’t outline the current climate today. Today, it’s clear that we can access music “at the touch of a button” without really thinking about the legal risks involved (until recently some would say).
ReplyDeleteWei points out in the Hesmondhalgh article that Napster (one of the first P2P file-sharing networks of its kind) was a lot easier to shut down through a lawsuit during the time but nowadays; there are an endless amount of networks of its kind that would be impossible for major music companies to shut down. On a personal level, with the new copyright internet laws to come into effect next month; I must come to the realisation that I will have to “legally” purchase my music through online networks such as iTunes.
ReplyDeleteHesmondhalgh states that “major record companies have been in the process of redefining themselves as creators and exploiters of intellectual property rights”. Many governments are now recognising the need for proportionate and effective steps to curb piracy. In 2010 for example, France and South Korea implemented “graduated response” measures that will for the first time engage ISPs in reducing P2P infringement on their networks.
ReplyDeleteI think digitals sales have eroded CD and DVD sales immensely over the last few years. Long gone are the days where the majority of us would head down to our local music and/or video stores to purchase/hire CDs and DVDs. Today, we as consumers are heavily reliant on the internet (P2P file-sharing and online streaming) because it’s only a mouse click away.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the new copyright internet laws (3-strike policy) set to come into effect on September 1, 2011 in New Zealand is that these laws are primarily aimed at frequent internet users of file-sharing P2P networks and websites such as Limewire and The Pirate Bay for example. As Joe mentioned, the law doesn’t necessarily prohibit internet users from streaming illegal material online such as music, television series and movies; or essentially put them in any real danger of having their internet disconnected. Personally, I believe the new laws won’t have too much of an effect on internet users who continue to use these P2P networks to download/stream their music online because there are other avenues that pirates are able to resort to which are untraceable i.e. online file lockers (RapidShare). Do the new copyright laws now mean an end to free internet at our local libraries?
ReplyDeleteTo conclude, it is evident that music is leading the creative industries into the digital age where these industries are forging the new models that aim to make digital music both consumer-friendly and commercially viable for creators. I don’t agree with Hesmondhalgh’s conclusion entirely because the article refers predominately to the P2P file-sharing atmosphere of the early 2000s and doesn’t assess the current climate.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting articles if you have the time ... and if the internet doesn't hate on me again and delete my comment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zeropaid.com/news/93326/new-zealands-three-strikes-law-was-pushed-bought-and-paid-for-by-the-us-wikileaks/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/arts/music/springsteen-and-others-soon-eligible-to-recover-song-rights.html?_r=1&ref=music
Hi all, back from the wintry south and good to see your comments. What I like is the Hesmondhalgh as given he was writing when he was, I think he got much of the "big picture" right and even predicted some of the "smaller picture". I'm interested in his emphasis on rights costs and how they are benefiting the music industry as opposed to the artist and in addition, the emergence of the discourse of "creative industries". I think this resonates well with the McRobbie discussion and how the apparent greater freedom in new workplace practises may create a new set of exclusions and less workplace democracy putting more pressure than ever particularly on younger workers . .Anyway, though, we now need to bracket this discussion until Week 13 and move onto radio OK? Will Cecil you all.
ReplyDeleteIn china the largest web site can help you search the music, we call it baidu.com, we can call this web site like Google Chinese version. You just need to download the link and you need't pay. Google china try to run a model like itune in china in 2009, but failed. But from last year, China government close all the P2P, and the copywrite situation is geting better for video, but audio still has a long way to go, i think
ReplyDeletei have a question is like baidu.com's model, they will not provide the music without copywrite, but they search the music and provide you the link, in fact the link's music is without copywrite. So will baidu.com is legal to do it? because they can get income from the web page's AD.
ReplyDeleteThought this would be relevant to our discussion. A landmark in the music industry - the worlds first app album!
ReplyDeletehttp://therandomfact.com/bjork%E2%80%99s-biophilia-album-is-a-landmark-in-the-music-industry/229907/