It appears that by design or chance, the big Town Hall meeting on Copyright law in Toronto yesterday was dominated by one side of the debate – that side representing the (mostly foreign-based) commercial music industry, that side seething epithets about “lawbreakers” and “pirates”, that side representing a tiny minority interest, that narrow slice of Canadian society that weakly resorts to costly litigation to solve its problems when the going gets tough. Blame your customers, eh? Blame the citizenry?
So this is just my short post echoing the growing protest over this entire process, noting the added outrage over Industry Canada apparently modifying copyright consultation submissions. Seems we have a problem – our Federal government is clearly, given its history on this subject, ensnared by the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists, and this purported open-mindedness about policy reform is nothing but political theatre, as could be anticipated.
What to do? Write to your MP, or host your own Copyright Town Hall meeting. Also, you might want to join the Pirate Party of Canada. I did.
“& as is typical of Conservatives, pointlessly drab and sleep-inducingly obvious political theatre”, the moral-aesthetic conscience chimes in…
“Expensive phones are like an enormous test phase, but budget phones are the true launch pad for a mobile technology.”
Well said. Read the rest at All About Symbian. It’s exciting to see the trickle of smart phone functionality into lower end handsets. Perhaps Nokia’s actually been listening to its participatory design researchers?
I am, however, reluctant to consider 90 Euros a “budget” price among the world’s poor, unless a group of 100 people is sharing one phone. A number worthy of discussion, to be sure…
If you’re interested, Ketai has some links to studies in the phenomenon of phone sharing; there’s also Jan Chipchase’s work for Nokia on “unlikely consumers” and “sideways adoption”, for starters.
Today is Northern Voice (I’m presenting tomorrow, but today is the unconference, most of which I hope to catch!), but right now I’m riveted to my laptop (poring over comments about torrent tracking) before I head out to UBC. Really good back n forth over at Nicholas Weaver’s Random Thoughts regarding claims as to whether it’s actually possible to block torrent traffic (more over at Copyfight). I’m convinced such tracking measures can be circumvented and that torrent sharing can’t be stopped. These debates seem to reaffirm this position, notwithstanding drilling into the tech nitty-gritty.
To repeat – the web is an Open network. Strategies to Close it go against its grain, and are stupendously impractical if not impossible.
I was recently asked by the Songwriters’ Association of Canada (SAC) to submit a briefing on why file sharing is inevitable, and why a levy system for ISPs makes sense. (The SAC is in the process of submitting a proposal along these lines to the Canadian government, in light of the political deliberations over where our copyright law is headed).
Here‘s the draft of my briefing to them (PDF, 176K). The gist of it? The internet IS file sharing. Comment, suggest revisions, and correct me where I’m wrong, if you please.
Read the SAC’s Proposal and sign up to support it here.
So I’m diving straight into my comprehensives now. I’m building lists and checking them twice (and more). While building these reading lists is in many ways a very personal journey, I’ve decided to blog about the process so that I might get feedback from unexpected locales, harnessing the “wisdom of crowds” (while simultaneously, in both comp areas, critiquing how such “wisdom” is in fact problematic). I also hope that documenting the process can help others through it. I won’t be posting my full notes (who’d read them?), but I will share my definitional essays, my questions and answers, and an account of process along the way. I’ve written up preliminary prÃ©ces of my two exam areas below.
Area 1. Science and Technology Studies. This will involve SCOT, ANT and other critical theories, but it will also dovetail through Philosophy of Technology (I’m thinking Heidegger through Marcuse and Feenberg, and also including Ellul and others, perhaps a few off the beaten track – we’ll see). I want to ask questions through this literature about the relationship of technology, power and social organization/social change. There are also some intriguing connections with Area 2 (below) via Hennion/Latour (their work on culture industries), and, according to one of my advisors, Habermas’ Public Sphere as well as Lazarsfeld.
Area 2. Culture Industries/Sociology of (The) Art(s). Starting with Hesmondhalgh’s (2002) synthesis of political economy of media studies with cultural studies and other approaches to the sociology of art, I plan to broaden this area out to include American and Continental approaches to the study of cultural/creative industries. This will likely include a range of approaches, including Bourdieu (various), Becker (various), and DeNora’s more recent work, but this area is still under development. There are important connections to literature on occupations (Balfe, Latouche) organizational studies (Throsby, Sacco, Menger), and of course The Frankfurts. Essentially, as I told one of my advisors this morning, I want to survey the body of work that theorizes culture industries, without limiting myself to a particular tradition (as approaches vary broadly). Keep in mind that I wish to keep this area current, as well, and as such I will need to make room for Eglash’s (and others’) work on appropriation, as well as Jenkins’ (and others’) work on fan culture. Sprawling enough? It makes sense to me.
My advisors, colleagues and friends (as well as the “social web” hoi polloi) can feel free to jump in any time. Like you have any time.