IP Readings Blog

Sinnreich

2008-12-21T09:33:00.001-08:00

I found Sinnreich’s argument that “the audience was born at the same time as music became a commodity” (128) to be interesting and really on-point. In a consumer society, no longer are cultural participants producing and listening to music for reasons of social identity (as in pre-industrial societies), but instead acquiring music in order to be considered cultural participants. This is incredibly true, especially when one thinks of how, in Facebook and MySpace profiles, music we “like” is linked up to others who enjoy the same music. By placing that music there, and signifying that you “have” this music, play it, and listen to it, you communicate your “group affiliations and cultural attitudes.” It’s an important musical/cultural phenomenon that I personally have not read much about, and Sinnreich’s description of this was particularly striking to me.

Barlow

2008-12-21T09:32:00.002-08:00

In his Wired article, John Perry Barlow provides a fantastic comparison between understanding light in more than one way and understanding information in such a manner. Just as light is understood as both a wave and a particle, information must be understood as an activity, a life form, and a relationship – and only by understanding this can one understand why information should not be chained down through burdensome intellectual property rights. Throughout his description, I really found Barlow’s statement of, “Information is a verb, not a noun,” to be the most powerful, since that in itself could shoot down any argument that it deserves any ounce of intellectual property rights. He writes, “Information is an action which occupies time rather than a state of being which occupies physical space, as is the case with hard goods. It is the pitch, not the baseball, the dance, not the dancer.” For me, it’s a novel way of perceiving information, yet it makes more sense than seeing it as a “thing.”

Lessig (2)

2008-12-21T09:32:00.001-08:00

First of all, I have to note that when I started reading this second part of Lessig’s book and he discussed the phenomena of the “chimera” (one person with two sets of DNA, or one animal), my mind immediately went to that creature by the same name in mythology…kind of interesting how genetics and mythological names here combine (unrelated © note!).

Anyway, when Lessig discussed “Balances” around page 211, the analogy he used to describe how “we’re focusing on the wrong thing” in the copyright debate was probably the best I’ve seen yet (adding gasoline to a burning fire instead of letting the fire burn itself out). Policy makers are only making the “problem” of new technologies worse by trying to stop them, but these technologies are not even the real problem. We’ve become blindsided by these various technologies and their ability to “violate” copyright, and are not paying attention to real cultural threats that have been set in place by policy makers and lobbyists…and frankly it’s scary.

Tehranian

2008-12-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

Tehranian’s article demonstrated in the clearest (and yet most mind-boggling) terms how everyone “infringes” copyright, and how very often this occurs. Beyond that, he confronts the issue that with our improving technology and eroding privacy, not only will we continue to “infringe” as we always have (and in greater numbers), but copyright violation enforcement will become all the more possible. And we’ve already seen this happen with the large number of RIAA cases, which Tehranian also discusses. This is a prime example of expanded enforcement of copyright laws, and while certain creators might herald this as a good thing, does it make sense in our current society? The law/norm gap here certainly needs to be reevaluated.

Wu

2008-12-05T12:23:00.000-08:00

After reading Wu, and considering the work of Lessig, I can say that Wu makes a fair and valid argument. He makes it easier to understand the state of the American government. The problem seems to be, as Wu argues, that the government is rightfully stuck on the ideology of democracy. Yet that makes it difficult to separate the actual issue from the ideology of how one feels it should be dealt with. I liked Wu because he clarified a side of the IP argument that is often criticized, cutting the "bad guys" some slack. In terms of the value of a product, I think this is interesting to consider when one thinks about incentive to create. I may utilize Wu's argument as a point of reference when considering whether incentive to create is necessary, and perhaps having sites like Creative Commons, shows a circumstance where the incentive is to share, and that copyright laws have not completed stifled creativity.

Lessig on AIDS

2008-12-05T10:40:00.000-08:00

Lessig's Free Culture wraps up with an important and significant argument about the need for reform. It is incredibly frustrating to hear about the need of big businesses to keep tight restraints on Copyright laws, when these same laws are killing people. It is ludicrous, and unimaginable that lifesaving medication is selling for $1500 when it costs $1, it values cost of living over the cost of a life. Everything we've read in terms of maintaining the integrity of art and the artist has been important, and I do not mean to discount the needs of artists, but that seems like such an insignificant and petty argument when you consider the patent restrictions and subsequent lack of needed medication to AIDS patients. These politicians need to get a grip, and examine the situation at hand which is drastic and preventable--they need to take PRO-active steps, instead of running in circles to save money and relationships with drug companies. When Heller came to speak he certainly did not sound optimistic about the future of such reform, but hopefully some change will come soon.

Ethics v. Economy

2008-12-01T20:38:00.000-08:00

"The people who have been led to believe that file sharing can be stopped with minimal intrusion are basically smoking crack."

In Pirate leader Falkvinge: "Our enemy has no intellectual capital to bring to the battle" Rick Falkvinge, the founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, compares two different sides of the intellectual property debate. On one side, there is an economic component and a financial incentive when considering laws and policies regarding IP. On the other hand, IP related issues stir up debate from a moral/ethical standpoint. Falkvinge notes, "Early on in the debate, we dropped the economic arguments altogether and focused entirely on civil liberties and the right to privacy. This has proven to be a winning strategy with my keynote "Copyright Regime. vs. Civil Liberties" being praised as groundbreaking." The economic reports, according to Falkvinge, are debatable, contradictory, abundant, and ultimately it becomes a matter of credibility. The civil liberties and moral argument, is often not debatable.

As we enter an increasingly surveillanced, "Big Brother" society, the issues of civil liberties and privacy have become more heated/readily discussed and debated issues. However, just as the Internet brings up new issues concerning privacy and surveillance, it also changes the business of media and the economic institutions/practices we are accustomed to. Is it okay/moral/ethical/justifiable/intelligent to consider and debate IP related issues on solely a moral and ethical platform based on the idea of civil liberties, or do we need to look more closely into the economic/financial side?

I would argue, that yes, there more certainly is an ethical and moral aspect of IP that is difficult to debate, but the economic argument is often overlooked.

Foreign aid

2008-11-30T10:23:00.000-08:00

I thought it would be worth mentioning, before going into Lessig's stance on the pharma industry, that they have been moments--however few and far in between--in which drug companies have distributed medicine at drastically reduced costs in order to accommodate developing countries. Heller was one of the first to point this out during his guest lecture.

That being said, it's a nice break and an interesting aberration from the standard capitalist critique (although it is usually true) to hear that pharma is not to blame in the case of Africa's lack of access to AIDS medication. "The corruption is our own politicians' failure of integrity. For the drug companies would love...to sell their drugs as cheaply as they can to countries in Africa and elsewhere." In light of the fact that US financial aid abroad is staggeringly low in comparison to that of most European countries, a reversal of such policy could be an excellent way to compensate for such a disparity and perhaps could prove itself more effective than monetary assistance.

Thanksgiving and the Networked Community

2008-11-28T23:41:00.001-08:00

This Thanksgiving I went to Connecticut with my boyfriend to celebrate the holiday with his best friends. Upon arriving at the house we would be celebrating in, I was greeted by a group of 14 very close, tightly connected friends that had clearly been sharing the bond of friendship for many years, through many experiences, in many different cities. Currently, the majority of them live in Boston, are in there late 20's/early 30's and are artists in some respect. There is a fashion designer, film directors, singers, composers, graphic designers, architects, actors, producers, and manager. Every one of them is a talented musician, and several bands exist in the circle as well. What was unique about this group of friends was the fact that they had decided to pool their creativity and distribute it in a number of different ways and into a number of different things. The graphic designers were designing the cover art for the bands and the bands were providing soundtracks for movies while the directors were shooting music videos for the bands, etc. etc. It was a beautiful synergy of talent, passion, and innovation that created new, interesting products and materials. This reminded me of a concept David Bollier presented in this week's reading. Bollier states that the issue with copyright today is that, "... it does not take account of the inherently social collaborative nature of creativity..." Additionally, he states that, "It is increasingly obvious that value-added creativity does not emerge solely through individual authors as copyright law presumes... It is becoming clear that originality does not reside solely in the individual but in the networked community." It was interesting to see this sort of small, enclosed, networked community in action. More and more I feel that society's notion of where originality comes from will shift and evolve, and hopefully copyright law will adapt to a new standard.

Wu

2008-11-25T09:33:00.000-08:00

I'll admit that I hadn't quite read Wu going into class last week...but after catching up, I can actually say that his perspective was quite refreshing. He was one of the few scholars we have covered who seemed to vest some confidence in our government's ability to adequately address copyright-related issues. I personally tend to empathize with the precariousness in which the state finds itself. The stewardship view is well-taken: "To argue that the state should allow an exemption to the enforcement of property rights to promote the functioning of the market is a logical contradiction." Further, it is indeed a leap of faith (but a logical one) to assume that "the demands of the market will necessarily recreate authorial incentives from somewhere, even if it is hard to specify where right now." As I mentioned in class, it appears that the copyright battle might have more to do with the American notion of democracy, which seems to have run amok and lost most of its intended value.

Africa vs. US

2008-11-25T09:27:00.000-08:00

Lessig concludes his “Free Culture” by explaining the problems with patent laws within the United States. He explains that although he backs up the system of patent holding over pharmaceutical drugs, he believes that there are existent faults in the American system that refrains the final product from reaching those in need. Firstly he points out The U.S.' opposition to the South African bill that allowed "parallel importation", allowing the flow of HIV medicine from other countries to be used within the country. Lessig argues that what the U.S. considers a flow of property or material substance is really a flow of knowledge that does not have negative effects on anybody, instead "turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives."
Again I return to the point that everyone has been ignoring: the United States copyright system puts money before people and untill that changes nothing is going to be changed, regardless of how many genius solutions experts come up with.

The trouble with Africa..

2008-11-24T23:13:00.001-08:00

Lessig’s Free Culture ends on a very powerful note, revealing the international need for reform and demonstrating how the fight over protecting intellectual property is costing human lives. This latter argument in particular had struck a chord with me. The logic is simple: pharmaceutical companies are essentially selling an AIDS treatment that costs a dollar to produce at outrageous prices such as $1500. While some people in the westernized nations may be able to afford this, it is completely unaffordable in countries that need in most-- sub-Saharan Africa. This pricing power stems from a monopoly standing that drug companies earn from a patented drug. Therefore, there is no incentive to sell the drug at $1 in Africa (and the rest of the world), if a higher price and net profit can be achieved.

But what really troubles me is that the problem doesn’t end here. To keep things simple, I will isolate this discussion to the troubles plaguing Africa. This continent, which has not witnessed an increase in living standards in the last hundred years, could greatly benefit from a relaxing of international IP law. An economy cannot take off without a stable infrastructure, starting at the grassroots. Countless textbooks, software, and digital media that fall in the realm of IP are likely being withheld from those in poverty because it is impossible for most to afford, say, a $150 university textbook. These products could greatly impact the long-run stability of the African continent by helping to increase the average education levels; but instead, these companies are more focused on retaining a large profit margin. Similarly, there are many vital technologies such as computers or cars that don’t stand a chance to gain a footing in these markets because of their current, overly exorbitant prices. Perhaps if we could loosen the IP laws to allow knock offs or copy-cats, the living standards in Africa may start to see a rise.

2008-11-24T21:40:00.001-08:00

Wu's article brought up some interesting points about the motives behind intellectual property legislation. In his analysis of modern approaches to IP law, he brings up the notion that "owned assets will gravitate towards their most valuable use". In other words, content that is valueless is largely considered worthless and therefore things that are kept out of the public domain retain their cultural and commercial potential. I personally still disagree with notion because I think that it is more based in fear than fact. However, his wording made more sense of this justification than ever before. This whole idea that intellectual creations have an inherent monetary value is based in the tradition of capitalism that dictates that every piece of hard work will result financial gain. With this in mind, it would make sense that so many people justify strong IP laws with the 'incentive for creation' line. I can understand how a business-focused mind would assume this. However, I argue that there doesn't necessarily need to be a financial incentive present for authors to create. I agree that financial gain creates a living situation that is conducive to creation. But most authors are not measuring their creative conceptions for their economic worth. This argument is purely in the interest of distributors.

briana berry

Maybe It's All Just a Case Like Africa

2008-11-24T20:41:00.000-08:00

Lessig presented the example of HIV-medication being prevented from reaching Africa because of the extra-fees placed by patenting costs. Lessig lauds the patent system as a means of encouraging scientific innovation though he also recognizes the ways it can be mis-used. What is more shocking is the presentation of its effects on the global scale- India could not import the drugs to Africa because America's invocation of the patent prevented it. This stood out to me because of the international aspects of IP regulation it brings to mind. Ultimately the world is becoming more and more interconnected and now more than ever international legal systems are coming into contact with each other. Consider also that President-Elect Obama wants to combat piracy in China but if it's not illegal or at the least if it's not policed there do we have the right to enforce our laws there? This all really brings to mind the murkiness of IP in that as much as IP legislation needs to modernize here so too must it modernize on a global scale. Reconsider our discussions of configurable culture... if one can sample music from around the globe how do we police that or license it? More than anything I think that IP can not b e looked at as property. I've realized more than ever that concrete property and intellectual property are hardly the same thing. They can not be treated that way because I can't really share my house with AIDS victims in Africa-that statement might sound silly but it's a simple iteration of this idea. We're holding onto things that don't really benefit from this level of security. There's a difference between innovation and fencing-in. I realize now more than ever this distinction... IP legislation should allow for innovation but not for over-propertization... there is no reason to draw up borderlines.

IP: A human created issue...

2008-11-24T19:09:00.001-08:00

One of the most important points Heller has made in The Gridlock Economy is the fact that Gridlock is a human creation and not something intrinsic to business practices and creative development. While his text discusses gridlock in several contexts, the the most compelling example that truly concerns me is the patent gridlock. Upon signing up for this course, I did not expect to have gained such insight on the patent gridlock that exists due to American law and business regulations. The patent gridlock actually scares me because medicines that could make a difference are not out on shelves. Both Heller and Lessig discuss the importance of IP and gridlock awareness and the need to change our American legal system so that it is more accommodating, or at least specific enough to protect rights to products while encouraging innovation.

I do agree with Heller when he says that addressing gridlock and fixing our gridlock economy could jump-start innovation, save lives and release trillions of dollars lost in productivity. It is appalling to me how much money is lost because of gridlock and how much average consumers have to pay for such.

gridlock

2008-11-24T18:53:00.001-08:00

Ever since I began reading Michael Heller's Gridlock Economy I'm been completely intrigued at how gridlock has become so ingrained in our society. Heller suggests that "quick isolation of gridlock can reduce the harm it imposes while giving legislators time to craft other solutions.(192)" I have a problem with this statement: How will legislators ( who create most of the legislative problems in IP due to their lack of knowledge on the issues) change or craft solutions so even if quick isolation can happen, will legislators be up to the challenge?
Also, in the realm of philanthropy I think that what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the malaria vaccine is amazing yet I still cant understand how other foundations who emphasize fundraising for the development for a cure such as cancer do not do the same thing. The cure can't be created if the patents are blocked so why does more money not go towards paying for patents (which im not sure is the real answer in the first place-although I do realize it is not economically feasible for the companies to have people not pay for patents) so that they can make more leeway in the creation of a drug.

Configurable No More?

2008-11-24T18:19:00.000-08:00

Aram Sinnreich chronicles the importance and weightiness of music in "Configurable Culture." From the inception of "state-mandated diagrams of permitted melodic and harmonic codes...in ancient Egypt" (19) to Confucius's laudation of music as a means of reforming culture, to the suppression of African tribal music during the Civil War in the South, to the insubordination of cabaret music in the midst of Prohibition, countless examples exist to underscore the importance of music (20).

Regardless of the example, it is clear that music presents at once a challenge to authority and an authoritative device, designed to hold individual behaviors in check. Music, then, has been regulated in a variety of ways across cultures and time. Regulation permits control over constituents; something highly valued by the persistent minority of the wealthy and the powerful.

Recent legislative measures have sought to impede musical liberties; particularly with regard to the dissemination and transfer of music. These legislative measure, however, go even further. Acts such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and efforts spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) serve industry motives and have attempted to further anti-piracy and "theft" efforts (26).

These legislative measures are grossly inappropriate, however, considering the current contextual elements of the status quo. Our culture has increasingly experienced a shift away from a centralization of musical actors (e.g. select few musical afficionados that become world-renowned) to a musical culture that focuses on the amalgamation of a number of different actors at different phases of the musical configuration. Therefore, outdated legislative intents are no longer applicable to 21st century technological developments and trends. We must adapt our legal system to embody and espouse the principles of a fragmented culture, contingent upon a variety of actors in a variety of manifestations. Otherwise, we will be doomed to remain a culture lost in the past.

Unlocking the Grid

2008-11-24T17:35:00.000-08:00

Heller's final chapter in Gridlock Economy provides his strategies for recognizing gridlock and ultimately "unlocking" it. But more important than any of his solutions, I believe, are his ways of noticing gridlock in the first place. I remember way back in the beginning of the semester when we first started reading this book, I was floored at how Heller even noticed these things. Obviously we know they exist, and they're completely apparent as underuse/anti-commons tragedies once brought to the forefront, but I had no idea how anyone would notice them initially, especially since so many "tragedies of the anti-commons" seem intrinsic to our culture and everyday life. We think it's normal to have crappy cell phone reception, as Heller points out, but it's completely our fault due to gridlock. Overseas, Japan's cell phone service is awesome. From my own experience in Europe, cell phone service is WAY better there. If we just "look next door" as he recommends, and see something's working better somewhere else, there may be gridlock hidden at home. Since this book is so new, I'm really interested to see where his theory and solutions go in terms of law-making. Will people solve excessive privatization and underuse on their own (as Heller describes in his "alternative" methods)? Or will the government have to lean on property owners for the gridlock to stop?

Lessig is More: the staying-power of his musical predictions

2008-11-24T13:32:00.000-08:00

"There is no other policy issue that better teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of music," states Lessig plainly in the Afterword of his Free Culture manifesto/book hybrid, but how well are his 2004 theories holding up four years later? Not only have some of his predictions come to fruition (keyboard-less Internet access and a profiliferation of wifi), but his advice on dealing the coming future is nearly as sound today as it was when his book was written. Piracy has changed a little bit, as BitTorrent and Rapidshare-style content storage websites have become the most common theft venues. On the other hand, many artists are allowing free usage of their music, either through free downloads, myspace streams, creative commons liscences, pay-what-you-want schemes, or other comparable techniques. What's interesting, is that music sharing seems to be slowing down as things like vinyl record sales are begginning to re-emerge from the annals of time. If a couple new ideas arise, and the general public realizes that outright theft isn't the end-all-be-all solution, we may see some progress in the recorded music industry. Compared to the pre-Napster era, worldwide music interest and dependancy has surely increased at least tenfold, so if these files can be properly commoditized, an impending seismic boom should re-establish one of America's greaest industries. In the coming years, music will be sold and distributed like water, but, unfortunately, that isn't as comforting a thought as it once was.

Diction & IP

2008-11-23T19:43:00.000-08:00

One of Michael Heller's solutions in his "solutions tool kid" is to re-define the vocabulary that we use to speak about intellectual property. By adding the words of underuse and anticommons to our daily vocabulary, we will begin to notice all the gridlock surrounding us. He later argues that we need to "get the labels right" such as re-terming the word "antitrust" which, according to Heller, "misleads regulators and harms consumers." These snippets of Heller's suggests for changing the way IP works in today's society revolve solely around how we refer to things, because the vocabulary we use to talk around IP, or any other issue for that matter, has a profound way of affecting how we think of something. While we'd all like to be able to think about things using the strict dennotative definition of everything, we can't help but also associate certain words with certain things. Connotations are just as powerful, if not more so, than dennotations and by changing the our diction, we might find that we're tackling the ideas of IP from a completely different perspective. In the realm of IP, we're only limited by the way our mind chooses to think about something.

The Public Domain

2008-11-23T09:30:00.000-08:00

I agree with Lessig's idea that "building a public domain is the first step to showing people how important that domain is to creativity and innovation." It seems like the public often has difficulty in understanding the value of something until they actually possess it. When I first read Lessig's comment, I was reminded of a scene in Michael Moore's film, Sicko. Some British academic is talking about the existence of universal healthcare in England, and that if the government ever did away with the system, there would be a massive revolt. Right now, we're debating the issue of healthcare in the US, and there seems to be mostly support for adopting a universal healthcare system. Even so, there remains considerable opposition. I would bet that if we ever end up adopting a government financed system, the opposition would mostly disappear, and the possibility of going back to the old healthcare system would not even be considered.

Configurable Music: The Next Step?

2008-11-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

Here's an anecdote about myself that I hope will shed some light on my views on configurable music and culture as a whole: I am an oboist. As a musician who plays an instrument that is hundreds of years old I am fortunate enough to bave access to a large catalogue of diverse music to play, a catalogue including music from the Baroque era. Taking place during the 17th century it is safe to say that now Baroque performance is one in which musicians must interpret what they assume the composer wanted. Key to Baroque performance is the insertion of ornamentation in which a musician essentially ad-libs the written music (yes it's like R&B with white-powdered wigs). Ornamentation however at least to me is similar to configurable culture because it in a way allows musicians (even oboists) to remix the piece. In a lesson when my teacher said ornament this way and I ornament in a different way, we are each offering up our own interpretation of what the piece is. Here's an extreme exampel. Arcangelo Corelli composed a concerto for the oboe that is now printed as the Corelli-Barbirolli Concerto, John Barbirolli was a conductor and composer who rearaanged the piece (mostly by placing specific ornaments) for wife, an oboist. Is this is not cofigurable culture? Maybe Barbirolli didn't use a computer to do it but even to sit at a piano and take Corelli's original themes and crafts is to me a form of remix. Remix is not an antagonistic art-form and it is not something that is "unartistic". As several remix artists point out in Aram's dissertation, popular culture as a whole took a long time become something people could respect or appreciate. Take the film for example. That medium took a while to become recognized as a form of art and it also took a long time to become organized and regulated. Perhaps this is the missing piece to the puzzle? Remix culture needs to regulated. Culture used to be held as something for the elite and pop culture destroyed that ideology providing culture to the masses. Remix culture stands to say that culture exists outside of institution (or at least certain remix artists espouse that idea)- perhaps this artform is ushering a major development in the way we understand the word culture? I don't think it should be stifled and ironically though I say remix culture is about taking culture out of instiutionalization I still think it should be institutionalized to assist with it becoming legitamized in mainstream society. Imagine a remix board that kept files of all remixes, what was sampled- perhaps this organization is a government one that acts as an advocate for configurable artists helping them obtain samples in a speedy manner, and perhaps paying for licensing fees with a government budget. What I've just suggested might sound ludicrous but hey the government has spent money on far more foolish things in the past. To reiterate my point, more and more people are obtaining culture from places like Youtube- places that are practically shrines to configurable culture. These artform can't be buried away anymore, regardless of legal action or no legal action.

Marx vs. Moglen

2008-11-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

Eben Moglen's The dotCommunist Manifesto is an interesting play off of Karl Marx's (in)famous Communist Manifesto. In Moglen's article, he argues that the time has come for a new revolution of the new proletariat of the digital age, in which free information would reign and private (intellecutual) property would be abolished. Moglen calls it, "the revolution that liberates the human mind" (9).

Now, while Moglen's argument, like Marx's original Communist Manifesto, seems great in concept, he, like Marx, is arguing for a very extreme change in the realm of IP. (Although, Moglen probably did this on purpose to better emulate Marx). But the problem for both Marx and Moglen that keeps such drastic revolutions from happening (or at least, succeeding) is the dominant pervailing ideologies on IP & how it should be treated. For most, Moglen's points are too extreme for enough people to adopt whole-heartedly to incite this "revolution." So while Moglen presents his thoughts in an interesting and creative way, like the original Communist Manifesto, the current reigning ideology will probably keep such a drastic revolution from ever happening--although it may cause some minor changes.

Music Evolution

2008-11-17T21:27:00.000-08:00

In Configurable Culture, Aram's discusses how music regulation, new technology, etc. can lead to innovation. Although I agree with this argument, I believe that not enough emphasis is placed on an important component of the process--artists themselves. The issue really boils down to a question of whether musical evolution is demand based (change in consumer tastes) or supply based (change in new music produced). I am more on the side of the supply argument for two reasons. First, I don't believe that all consumers can change their tastes at the same time in the same direction, for artists to then respond and supply to. Second, I think people don't know what they are looking for, they merely react to whats available to them. For instance, I have found that I can like almost any genre of music that I am exposed to; the old adage of "let it grow on you".

But my main reason for this belief is based in historical examples. Consumers didn't all of a sudden decide that hip hop lyrics sound better through a voice synthesizer, instead T-pain started the trend and other artists like Snoop, Kanye, and Lil Wayne followed suit. Likewise, music fans weren't aware that they were in love with boy bands until the backstreet boys came out, and in an attempt to ride the wave, N'sync, 98 degrees, O-town followed suit. Again, I am in full agreement with Aram's analysis of changes in music over the decades. However, I believe every change requires a push and a pull, and the main pull stems from the precedents of major artists.

2008-11-17T21:03:00.000-08:00

Aram's writing on the ways that society and government uses music as a tool of control made me realize that this is happening more than ever right now. Personally, I think that the way music is ideologically regulated is the most significant in terms of persuading not only consumer behavior but the investments of the industry. These ideological priorities can be seen in the topical consistency of Top 40 music. These chart-toppers are overwhelmingly preaching commercial ideals that are supportive of capitalism. Songs that are covetous and materialistic in nature cause listeners to adopt these ideals, even if subconsciously at the least. And because it seems to be the least risky for music investors, it encourages musicians to make this kind of music in order to gain their favor. This is a form of ideological control in the sense that it prevents the masses from listening to potentially persuasive music that discourages the ideals that keep our society stable.

One interesting example that Aram brought up was the practice of the African colonialists placing certain bans on indigenous music that had potentially subversive meanings. While the regulation did seek to suppress, it was not entirely successful because the secondary meanings were already such a big part of their culture. I wonder if the methods of control would be more powerful in societies where secondary meaning is inherent rather than purposeful and universally recognized. Looking more at topical oppression, the mainstream market will not resist because consumers don't realize the nature of the control.

briana berry