A serious problem afflicting industries such as the film or
music industry, involves an argument surrounding ‘the injustice of file-sharing
versus the injustice of restraints on file-sharing’ (Martin 2008). This issue
pits large scale industries against numerous file-sharers worldwide with many
tactics used to discredit the opposing party’s opinion and harm their overall
objectives.
This blog post will focus on the tactic of devaluation
versus validation. In this case, the tactic revolves around how the music or
movie industries attempt to discredit those transferring or downloading illegal
files. In response to these tactics, file-sharers attempt to validate their
methods while arguing it is unfair to restrain people from transferring files.
One of the most recognisable campaigns designed to attack
file-sharers, or ‘pirates’ was produced by the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA ). I’m sure you are aware of
the commercial screened before each movie you view, whether it’s in the cinema
or you’re simply watching a DVD in your
lounge room? The one which forcefully reiterates the message that you wouldn't
steal a car, laptop or handbag, so why is it acceptable to ‘steal’ a movie? Of
course by stealing, the campaign is referring to illegally downloading the
movie via a peer-to-peer file-sharing service.
Martin et al. (2010) state that powerful organisations such
as the film or music industry ‘often try to devalue targets by applying
derogatory labels to them, disseminating discrediting information or setting
them up in compromising situations.’ The purpose of the MPAA
commercial, which has become so deeply ingrained in the minds of regular
film-viewers, is to discredit file-sharers and compare them to criminals while strongly
discouraging illegal movie downloads. It appeals to our conscience as well; asking
why we think it’s acceptable to ‘steal’ content and potential profits from the
pockets of producers, actors and film companies.
Alternatively, file-sharers will attempt to legitimise their
methods while bringing into question the music/movie industry’s determination
to curb peer-to-peer downloads. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an
example of file-sharers combining to fight large scale industries. The EFF proclaim
they will ‘protect your rights in the digital world’, while ‘fighting for a
constructive solution that gets artists paid while making file sharing legal’.
Words like ‘misguided’ and ‘irrational’ are also used on the foundations home
page to describe the ‘war against P2P.’
The continuing fight between large scale industries and
file-sharers will be intriguing to follow, with issues likely to continue as
technology continually develops.
References:
Electronic Frontier Foundation website, https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing,
retrieved 21/8/13
Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C 2010, 'Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry', First Monday, vol. 15, no. 12, retrieved 21/8/13, URL- http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680
Martin, B 2008, 'The Henson affair: conflicting injustices?', Australian Review of Public Affairs (July), retrieved 21/8/13, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/martin.html
Martin, B 2008, 'The Henson affair: conflicting injustices?', Australian Review of Public Affairs (July), retrieved 21/8/13, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/martin.html
No comments:
Post a Comment