The internet is according to Winokur “A site of cultural political and ideological contestation”. The internet is a foreshadowing of the post structural society it is intangible but real and constitutes individuals ability to determine their interactions. Panopticism belongs to the theory of post structuralism because of the apparent control it exerts through not having to actually control. The panopticon was originally a prison structural design which was centrifugal in that all power was centralized and then transferred to the prisoners to use on themselves. The central tower was positioned in such a way that it over looked the entire prison complex and every cell was visible to the ostensible guard. Each prison cell was exactly the same to semantically put across that all the inhabitants were the same. The guard was not always in the tower but the prison mates never really knew if he was there or not or when. The result was that whether or not he was there the prisoners regulated themselves at all times because of the possibility of being seen in the wrong.
The internet is explained and set up in such a way that it should be have an anarchical political structure but instead it is referred to by theorists an electric panopticon. Questions arise such as who the authorities in the panopticon are, why they are regulating, what are the consequences of their regulation and what the punitive measure are for those found to be wanting? The most important question is perhaps where is the line drawn between spying and regulation? To answer the question of authority Manovich asserts that “the internet and then the culture into which it is embedded belong to whoever writes the code and codec.” This is contestable because that would mean that the internet has multiple owners all of whom have conflicting interests. Additionally, the fact that the internet has now become a site for the operations of capitalism by companies partially answers the question. However due to the decentralized nature of the internet I think it is impossible to conclude that anyone owns the internet. It is a space in which at any point the usage of it can change depending on need. In the case of facebook we find that the user and consumer becomes the producer of content changing the flow of any kind of organizational structure. The internet has numerous spaces and depending on the space the roles of individuals and companies change. According to Winokur “Both panopticism and the Internet construct space with a special attention to the subject's internalizing a particular model of space, and a particular notion of how people are distributed throughout space in relation to one another.”
The use of the current power structure is controlled by unknown powers “Slovaj Zizek refers to the fiction of authority as the “radical uncertainty” (Winokur: 2003) within the internet prescribes uniformity to the netizen for the exploitation of capitalists. Just like in an actual prison cell the advent of internet supporting technologies such as smart technology compartmentalize individuals and hence “Each person inhabits his or her own prison cell. The uniformity that the ‘authorities’ have promulgated was geared towards consumerism and has lead to dependency of the technology because of the importance attached to its reach.
In terms of cultural production in the form of music the issue of control on the internet becomes very important. Constant file sharing between users of musical files leads to loss of revenue to the music labels and the musicians. The Recording Industry of America Association is currently suing the very people who listen to music made in the U.S. by recording labels for piracy and stealing. Copywriting has become the method of control of content generated from music labels. This presents situation where the private property of the musician and the record label being distributed on the public sphere of the net. I feel that the quote by Thomas Mare in his book Utopia best describes the situation “What else is to be concluded except that you first create thieves and then punish them for it”. The music industry creates the market and demand for their cultural good and then makes it inaccessible through pricing and then when people exercise their autonomy to be a participative individual in cyberia and engage in music file sharing, the labels sue the same people they want to be their customers. The object of the law suit is to ban peer to peer networking. The RIAA has a software program called Digital Rights Media, DRM, which encrypts the end product and restricts the ability to dupiplicate their product forcing people to purchase the product. In my opinion I think that it makes no sense to then release a ‘private’ product in a space that has the main objective of sharing and then force people to purchase it. If musicians and music labels do not want their music shared freely then they should not release it into a medium that is predominantly defined by liberation of most international, political and economic barriers.
RIAA vs. Limewire
Historically music was an art form but technological innovations such as the synthesizer has changed the landscape of music completely to the point it is made in order to be supported by technological equipment such as iPods which in turn feed into the capitalist machine through the purchasing of said songs from the is tore. In concurrence with Kembrew McLeod, before the internet piracy existed in the form of taping from home and both the music and video industry survived these eras through the invention of new technology that enhanced the music listening or film watching experience such as 3D and Blue Ray. The entertainment industry can survive internet file sharing as well without their current attempts at punitive measures. The question I have is, are they run out of innovative ideas to make the consumer want to spend money on the product or have they gotten to comfortable to be concerned with evolving with the times?
No comments:
Post a Comment