[p2p-research] Fwd: Discussions beyond the dichotomy of ‘downloading is theft’ ...

[Michel Bauwens]

thesis on filesharing

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tomas Rawlings <tomasrawlings at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Discussions beyond the dichotomy of ‘downloading is theft’ ...
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Andersson <jonastics at gmail.com>


Hi Michel,

Here's is my feedback on the research, written in the form of an article to
put on the p2p blog (and my blog) if this sounds ok you with you?

I should note that my PhD tutor Jon Dovey has (I think) been an external
examiner of this paper.

Let me know what you think and if there are any links that could be added to
this as an article.

Tomas

PS. Jonas, On a minor point: p.282 seems to be missing 'dwell'; "I shall not
too much on my respondents’ attitudes towards the entertainment industry."
-

Title: Discussions beyond the dichotomy of ‘downloading is theft’ vs.
‘information wants to be free’ research by Jonas Andersson (2010)
Goldsmiths, University of London

 Paper: Peer-to-peer-based file-sharing beyond the dichotomy of ‘downloading
is theft’ vs. ‘information wants to be free’: How Swedish file-sharers
motivate their action . Jonas Andersson (2010) Goldsmiths, University of
London

 Jonas Andersson's study of p2p based file-sharing, uses a methodology of
combined interrogation of the technological structures, an examination of
the aggregated group dynamics and individual in-depth discussions with the
people involved in file-sharing. It is encouraging to see how much depth he
has put into the methodological process. This is important to note as this
more 'holistic' view (as in the whole system) is important in understanding
what is a complex mix of human and non-human actors and a recognition that
both bring agency to the equation, for example:

"The idea of Internet activism can be read in the same way. While “taking
on” this role requires active choice, it is not necessarily a conscious
effort, and as a computer user regularly occupies several different roles
while using a networked computer, it is arguable whether all such ‘actant’
modes are even optional." (p.296)

The depth of the interviews is doubly important as it presents an
opportunity to pass though surface layers into a deeper realm of
understanding. For example in the extract below the discourse between
file-sharers and the media industries portrayal of them is uncovered (note
the names in the text below of are of interview respondents):

"Vega believed that what the industry would see as the main threat is the
pluralism of p2p-based file-sharing, namely that more sources and more
artefacts would be accessible. Agge and Pringle similarly emphasised the
pernickety, discerning habits of contemporary consumers. Agge and LB noted
the file-sharers’ lack of respect towards the industry. Agge maintained that
while the slogan ‘downloading is theft’ makes some sense in the current
legal system (where works of art are made comparable to physical objects),
it ostensibly aims at mystifying and demonizing the activity, further
reinforcing the ‘copyfight’ dichotomy. A corporate discourse which so
fundamentally clashes with the everyday understanding of the activity risks
finding users actively distancing themselves even further from corporate
interests, and instead sympathising with allegedly more hard-line ‘pirate’
subcultural formations, which at the time of my interviews only appeared to
have a marginal influence among everyday file-sharers." (p.283)

I think this extract shows why the choice of a deeper methodological
interrogation is needed, as a more trite approach would not have pierced the
surface slogans to undercover the interpolated meaning that lies below. In
addition the research is (rightly so) keen to interrogate those to
participate in file-sharing into the economic issues that inevitably are
raised:

"[A file-sharer stating that he had ‘no bad conscience’] was one of the
instances prompting me to see the respondents’ dismissal of the entire
content industry as, in effect, a facilitator for justification of their own
actions. To claim that the conventional system is not fair, or that it is
flawed and does not work properly could in effect serve as a way to
simultaneously dismiss the moral concerns that go with this system –
regardless of how large a part of this system one would personally be.
Subjective dismissal of a system need not mean that the system is
objectively flawed." (p.284)

This is an important point and an issue that p2p file-sharing does need to
engage with, though not necessarily on the terms and within the frame set my
major media corporations. (Indeed, this is something the some file-sharing
groups have started to take on.)

There is also an issue of equality, not the human rights equality we are
used to a discourse of (important though it is, and within the research
there is an interesting discussion on the ideas of access to culture as a
human right) but around the rights and empowerments of technological
literacy:

"It has been shown that the p2p systems facilitate great user emancipation,
which however comes at an expense: those who are more skilled and computer
literate not only benefit from being able to make better use of their
Internet connection, they also reflexively see themselves as better placed
to understand the technology in question – and by extension, the direction
and scope of societal development. This might be primarily attributable to
pre-existing differences in knowledge, skill and material accessibility in
society which might however, be reinforced by current technology. This is
arguably less obvious in Sweden, where levels of Internet and computer
literacy are relatively high and evenly distributed in society." (p.304)

This has been an issue I have encountered first hand; One company I was
involved with was created as a cooperative yet as it developed, there was an
obvious power imbalance. Those with the skill to sell and those with the
programming abilities, who skills were already more valued in the existing
market place, also found they are in a stronger position with such an
organisation, even though it is theoretically one-person-one-vote.  I did
talking with sombody from a cooperative organisation about ways of adressing
these issues, but none sadly were forthcoming.

In summary, Andersson's work is an important contribution to both the
maturing of the debates around p2p file-sharing and copyright and also the
broader issues of p2p theory as noted here.



-- 

*Tomas Rawlings*

Director, Auroch Digital Ltd - Digital Media & Video Games
Consultancy, Project Management, Evaluation & Education.
http://aurochdigital.com/



-
I also blog on games, p2p, media ecology & evolution:
http://agreatbecoming.wordpress.com
Oh, and I tweet too: www.twitter.com/arclightfire






-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101114/78481790/attachment.html>