today's the rare occasion when I update...
With lots of important help from Heather, I typed up a sweet paper for my Cultural Semiotics final. I like it so much that I'm going to post it. It's all about the music industry and how they're fucking the consumer in various ways. I talk about file-sharing and how it mostly benefits the artist. It's a pretty informative read, so enjoy.
The Music Industry
In February, 2004, a twelve-year old settled a lawsuit for $2,000 over music file-sharing. Who decided that a twelve-year old to be punished for this heinous crime? The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). This young girl was one of hundreds of people who’ve been sued by the RIAA, in the past few years. The RIAA is the group that represents the American music industry. They are the ones that legitimize the status of how many albums an artist has sold, in gold (500,000) platinum (1,000,000), and multi-platinum (multiple millions). The gold and platinum awards are proof that the music industry is more concerned with sales rather than the music itself.
What exactly is file-sharing? File-sharing is the act of exchanging digital files over the internet via peer-to-peer networks. This allows people to trade and share music freely. In this post-modern era, this file-sharing technology allows people to access whatever music they want, and at any time. In a sense, the music industry is losing their ability to tell people what to listen to. Bands not on major record labels can now release their music to the masses. They no longer need to be under the control of a major record label. An indie rock (independent rock) band in Michigan now has the capability of being heard by someone in California, New York, or even Japan. This is working to break down the ideology set by the music industry.
What sort of ideology has the music industry established in recent years? The music industry has strayed away from music as an art form and has focused more on the financial aspects of it. Now, to be considered a serious musician you have to be signed to a major record label. In a sense, aspiring artists must also be aspiring to get signed to a label. Being apart of a label is the validation that you are a “real” musician. In days of old, a “real” musician was anyone who played music. It had nothing to do with recordings, or gigs, or anything besides music. It was there to be enjoyed, and to express the emotions and stories that the musician wanted to tell of. They weren’t concerned with whether or not they were going to be showcased on TRL. It was an honor to be able to play your music, but now one of the greatest honors is to reach that platinum status. It is all about selling the most albums, emphasis on selling.
Since there is such a huge emphasis on selling music, the pricing of music is obviously an issue. How does one decide how much music costs? This is another ideology of the music industry: pricing music. They are the ones that determine how much an album or a song costs. They look at file-sharing as taking that amount of money away from them. The problem is they are the ones that made up that dollar amount to begin with. That number is arbitrary.
How is music an object to be priced? Buying a CD from a store isn’t about owning the physical disc, but rather possessing the music. The music on that CD is nothing more than a file on a disc. That file is a copy of another file, which is a copy of another file, and so on and so forth. Even when you go back to the recording stages there are many different recordings, which are copied for different masteries. Even beyond that, the song has been played so many times by that musician, before that record was even produced. There is no physical original. Music is simply a simulacra, the concept brought forth by Baudrillard stating that there are no originals only copies. File-sharing is merely the natural continuation of the simulacra. That is the last thing the music industry wants you to see, so they busy themselves with telling you about the originality and copyrights of their cash cow.
Through commodity fetishism, the music industry has stripped music of its artistic meaning. They’ve placed this new monetary value on production costs, instead of the real “worth” of the art. Music is no longer valued for what it does, but for what it costs, how it looks, and what social connotations it bears. It’s now treated the same way as bottled water. Bottled water has been emptied of the meaning of its production, for instance where it was bottled, who bottled it, etc. It has been filled with new meaning, such as it comes purified, or that it’s from a mountain spring. It is no longer acceptable to drink from tap, because it’s not “clean” enough. What they’re doing is saying that music costs “this” amount of money, and not to question it. They’ve taken music, which has only one use value, and have placed a pricey exchange value on it.
In comes the massive lawsuits against individuals under the guise of copyright infringement. The music industry claims that every time a song is shared without royalties being paid it is like taking food from the mouths of the artists themselves. The music industry knows they can’t keep an eye on every single person and their “illegal” downloads. So, they try and put the fear of God in us by suing a few hundred people at a time for their musical indiscretions. This sets up a panoptical system. A panopticon is a type of prison. It is set up so the guard is in the center, and the prisoners are in individual cells surrounding. The guard can see the prisoners at all times, but the prisoners can never see the guard so they never know if they’re being watched. This creates self-regulation on behalf of the prisoners. The RIAA does the same thing with these lawsuits. They let it be known that they can check your computer for their music, if so inclined. The panopticon has worked in some documented cases. Some people, in fear of being targeted have wiped out there entire music collection.
The whole premise for the RIAA suing file-sharers is because they say that it is financially detrimental to artists. Artists surveyed by non-profit organization, Pew Internet and American Life Project, actually say otherwise. Two-thirds of artists interviewed weren’t concerned with the threat of file-sharing to them financially. According to one of the organizations research specialists, Mary Madden, “ What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations.” Musicians are more concerned with getting their music out, whereas the music industry is more concerned with making money.
Through file-sharing, music has become a global village. It allows users to trade music with anyone around the world. This opens up way more opportunities for people to be influenced by music they haven’t heard; music beyond the scope of the RIAA. The trouble with file-sharing is that it restricts the grasp the RIAA has on the file-sharing user. It is an American based company that can only target Americans. They have no power over music from other countries. They don’t like the feeling of no power. That is the reason they care so much about the money in the first place. Money is power.
The music industry uses interpellation to get people to listen to the types of music they want them to. Interpellation is a way of telling people their place in society, and consumers what they should be buying according to their place in society. File-sharing allows people to bypass the interpellation system by accessing the music they desire directly. They no longer need to hear music solely through American media, such as radio or television.
The music industry is obviously more concerned with how much money they’re making, and not about the music itself. The ideology about having to be apart of a label, and to have gigs has altered the way a musician is defined. Another ideology that exists without question is the monetary value of music. This is solely a creation of the music industry. They see file-sharing as a massive threat to their livelihood for several reasons. The RIAA claims that file-sharing takes away from the artist, when in reality it opens up new opportunities for distributing and expressing their music. It also allows artists to reach audiences around the world as opposed to Americans only hearing American released music, and so on. In an attempt to squash file-sharing, the RIAA has used panopticism. They file lawsuits against individual file-sharers in an attempt to scare other file-sharers. Because of the global village, the RIAA can only target American file-sharers, as they have no power elsewhere. The music industry should realize they brought this upon themselves by putting a high price on a commodity with limited use value. File-sharing is simply a response to the way that the music industry has been screwing the consumer.
I'll make another post with all my X-Mas gifts that I received... it may even be soon that I do this.
The Music Industry
In February, 2004, a twelve-year old settled a lawsuit for $2,000 over music file-sharing. Who decided that a twelve-year old to be punished for this heinous crime? The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). This young girl was one of hundreds of people who’ve been sued by the RIAA, in the past few years. The RIAA is the group that represents the American music industry. They are the ones that legitimize the status of how many albums an artist has sold, in gold (500,000) platinum (1,000,000), and multi-platinum (multiple millions). The gold and platinum awards are proof that the music industry is more concerned with sales rather than the music itself.
What exactly is file-sharing? File-sharing is the act of exchanging digital files over the internet via peer-to-peer networks. This allows people to trade and share music freely. In this post-modern era, this file-sharing technology allows people to access whatever music they want, and at any time. In a sense, the music industry is losing their ability to tell people what to listen to. Bands not on major record labels can now release their music to the masses. They no longer need to be under the control of a major record label. An indie rock (independent rock) band in Michigan now has the capability of being heard by someone in California, New York, or even Japan. This is working to break down the ideology set by the music industry.
What sort of ideology has the music industry established in recent years? The music industry has strayed away from music as an art form and has focused more on the financial aspects of it. Now, to be considered a serious musician you have to be signed to a major record label. In a sense, aspiring artists must also be aspiring to get signed to a label. Being apart of a label is the validation that you are a “real” musician. In days of old, a “real” musician was anyone who played music. It had nothing to do with recordings, or gigs, or anything besides music. It was there to be enjoyed, and to express the emotions and stories that the musician wanted to tell of. They weren’t concerned with whether or not they were going to be showcased on TRL. It was an honor to be able to play your music, but now one of the greatest honors is to reach that platinum status. It is all about selling the most albums, emphasis on selling.
Since there is such a huge emphasis on selling music, the pricing of music is obviously an issue. How does one decide how much music costs? This is another ideology of the music industry: pricing music. They are the ones that determine how much an album or a song costs. They look at file-sharing as taking that amount of money away from them. The problem is they are the ones that made up that dollar amount to begin with. That number is arbitrary.
How is music an object to be priced? Buying a CD from a store isn’t about owning the physical disc, but rather possessing the music. The music on that CD is nothing more than a file on a disc. That file is a copy of another file, which is a copy of another file, and so on and so forth. Even when you go back to the recording stages there are many different recordings, which are copied for different masteries. Even beyond that, the song has been played so many times by that musician, before that record was even produced. There is no physical original. Music is simply a simulacra, the concept brought forth by Baudrillard stating that there are no originals only copies. File-sharing is merely the natural continuation of the simulacra. That is the last thing the music industry wants you to see, so they busy themselves with telling you about the originality and copyrights of their cash cow.
Through commodity fetishism, the music industry has stripped music of its artistic meaning. They’ve placed this new monetary value on production costs, instead of the real “worth” of the art. Music is no longer valued for what it does, but for what it costs, how it looks, and what social connotations it bears. It’s now treated the same way as bottled water. Bottled water has been emptied of the meaning of its production, for instance where it was bottled, who bottled it, etc. It has been filled with new meaning, such as it comes purified, or that it’s from a mountain spring. It is no longer acceptable to drink from tap, because it’s not “clean” enough. What they’re doing is saying that music costs “this” amount of money, and not to question it. They’ve taken music, which has only one use value, and have placed a pricey exchange value on it.
In comes the massive lawsuits against individuals under the guise of copyright infringement. The music industry claims that every time a song is shared without royalties being paid it is like taking food from the mouths of the artists themselves. The music industry knows they can’t keep an eye on every single person and their “illegal” downloads. So, they try and put the fear of God in us by suing a few hundred people at a time for their musical indiscretions. This sets up a panoptical system. A panopticon is a type of prison. It is set up so the guard is in the center, and the prisoners are in individual cells surrounding. The guard can see the prisoners at all times, but the prisoners can never see the guard so they never know if they’re being watched. This creates self-regulation on behalf of the prisoners. The RIAA does the same thing with these lawsuits. They let it be known that they can check your computer for their music, if so inclined. The panopticon has worked in some documented cases. Some people, in fear of being targeted have wiped out there entire music collection.
The whole premise for the RIAA suing file-sharers is because they say that it is financially detrimental to artists. Artists surveyed by non-profit organization, Pew Internet and American Life Project, actually say otherwise. Two-thirds of artists interviewed weren’t concerned with the threat of file-sharing to them financially. According to one of the organizations research specialists, Mary Madden, “ What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations.” Musicians are more concerned with getting their music out, whereas the music industry is more concerned with making money.
Through file-sharing, music has become a global village. It allows users to trade music with anyone around the world. This opens up way more opportunities for people to be influenced by music they haven’t heard; music beyond the scope of the RIAA. The trouble with file-sharing is that it restricts the grasp the RIAA has on the file-sharing user. It is an American based company that can only target Americans. They have no power over music from other countries. They don’t like the feeling of no power. That is the reason they care so much about the money in the first place. Money is power.
The music industry uses interpellation to get people to listen to the types of music they want them to. Interpellation is a way of telling people their place in society, and consumers what they should be buying according to their place in society. File-sharing allows people to bypass the interpellation system by accessing the music they desire directly. They no longer need to hear music solely through American media, such as radio or television.
The music industry is obviously more concerned with how much money they’re making, and not about the music itself. The ideology about having to be apart of a label, and to have gigs has altered the way a musician is defined. Another ideology that exists without question is the monetary value of music. This is solely a creation of the music industry. They see file-sharing as a massive threat to their livelihood for several reasons. The RIAA claims that file-sharing takes away from the artist, when in reality it opens up new opportunities for distributing and expressing their music. It also allows artists to reach audiences around the world as opposed to Americans only hearing American released music, and so on. In an attempt to squash file-sharing, the RIAA has used panopticism. They file lawsuits against individual file-sharers in an attempt to scare other file-sharers. Because of the global village, the RIAA can only target American file-sharers, as they have no power elsewhere. The music industry should realize they brought this upon themselves by putting a high price on a commodity with limited use value. File-sharing is simply a response to the way that the music industry has been screwing the consumer.
I'll make another post with all my X-Mas gifts that I received... it may even be soon that I do this.