Reviewer:

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter in itself would appear relevant to the journal specifically, as well as to those with an interest in peer production and community music/heritage more generally.  Topics such as digital ownership, file-sharing and peer production online continue to be topical and of interest to scholars and the general public.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

While a number of sources are provided throughout the article, I do not feel that these sources are sufficiently engaged with – they are often just referred to, without explaining the relevance of the source, the arguments made, and why those arguments are of relevance to those being made by the author of this article.  The author, for example, frequently refers to the limiting and counter-productive nature of the copyright system – however, they do not really refer to any specific laws, either national or international, and the ways in which they have this deleterious effect, nor do they sufficiently engage with literature on the topic of the lobbying for increased copyright protection, in either the US, EU, or other national/regional regimes.  Particularly given the discussions about online production, references to works such as Lessig’s ‘Free Culture’ or ‘Remix’, in which these issues are discussed in detail, or Reyman’s ‘The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property’ may provide the author with concrete examples, with reference to legal literature, on the topic of restrictive intellectual property laws.  Reference to sources on international lobbying in the intellectual property system, and its impact on cultural heritage works might also be of use, such as Drahos and Braithewaite’s ‘Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?’.  As such, the discussion of the negative impact of copyright laws is essentially unreferenced, and under-developed.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The author makes a number of assumptions that are not really supported or sufficiently proven throughout the text.  They are as follows:

p.1: – While for scholars in the field of ethnomusicology, the use of the term ‘pygmy pop’ and the associated concerns over cultural appropriation may be well understood, this may not necessarily be the case for the audience of the journal.  More needs to be done to explain the impact of cultural appropriation, why it is to be considered negative, and what harms are created by it, with reference to relevant sources.  With regard to its interaction with peer production – if community building, and creative works that draw upon a shared culture or understanding are to be valued, why does this then change in the event of ‘cross culture’ use.  If sharing is perceived as a benefit, why is cultural appropriation in itself a negative?  Is it entirely to do with the economic dimension?  Is it a lack of respect for the cultural underpinnings of that music form?

p.2: – The author states ‘The notion, therefore, of a number of people contributing to a continually developing, widely collaboratively produced work is at odds with this older cultural and industrial tradition’ – this assertion needs to be supported by evidence, and reference to academic or legal sources.  What is the older cultural and industrial tradition, and how is it reflected in the international legal order?  This also links to a second concern about the work, which is that it appears to bounce between the idea that capitalizing upon cultural heritage is negative, and more needs to be done to protect these works, and the idea that the copyright system is flawed and limits the ability to share and create collaborative works.  Are these not mutually opposed ideals?  The author needs to do more in the article, I feel, to create a logical consistency between these two elements of the work.

P 3: – references to different conceptualisations of creativity – this section needs more references on the ‘western’ approach, along with examples of how national or international legal systems limit creation through an author-centred conceptualisation of copyright.

pp.3-4: – the discussion of creation provided here along with the personal anecdote doesn’t appear to add to the article in any significant way.  What is the author getting at here, and what is the relevance to the main arguments presented in the article?  The importance of this section is unclear.  Doesn’t the discussion of the personal, individualised process described add weight to a ‘western’ conceptualization of creation, and if so, how does this relate to the main arguments?

pp.6-7: I am not entirely sure what argument the author is making here – Internet access is more expensive in developing countries, and forms of sharing may be different (although some evidence from academic literature on this might be helpful).  What does this mean for peer production?  Are we concerned about people expecting music for free, or are we concerned about access?  The author states that ‘are at the end of the era of an economic mentality driven by those with origins, experience and financial stakes in older industrial models who still apply rivalrous concepts and associated values to non-rivalrous media’ – but is this the case?  Does evidence suggest that perceptions are changing?  If so, where can this information be found?  Are there analogies to earlier changes in markets?  The author then jumps to talking about the intermediary providers, and their intention to sell advertising.  Again, how does this relate to the main themes of the article, and is this something to be seen as negative, or just a tension that exists in many different forms in different areas of commerce?  If the advertising sold then facilitates ‘free’ access for individuals, is this necessarily negative?

p.7: the author states ‘Google could solve the problem by re-allocating resources, but that would threaten the very business model on which they rely’.  This is somewhat vague.  Reallocate resources to what?  Tackling copyright infringement?  If so, why would it threaten their business model?  What is the relevance of the business model for the main arguments of the paper?  Are we concerned about peer-production, access, or protecting right-holders?  How does this then impact on the perception, or use, of enforcement mechanisms online?  This part of the argument does not seem particularly well explained.

p.8: – the author states ‘Rather than a transformation of capitalism, however, the revenue has simply shifted to hardware, bandwidth, and advertising, as has the power. Those without a share in that are understandably threatened. The changes are increasingly global, tectonic even, driven as they are by shifts in power underwritten by the logic of neoliberal capitalism’ – this may be the case, but these statements needs to be sourced, and better explained.  What is the relevance to the article?  Why are these new business models negative, or are they not?  What impact does this have for peer-production/cultural heritage/copyright protection, and how does it relate to cultural appropriation?

p.9: – the author states ‘The law has perhaps never been so out of step with social practice as it currently is with recorded music.’  This is quite emotive, but is there any evidence to support it?  What are examples of these laws?  Is recorded music so different, or so extreme?  What about laws concerning popular protest, for example, or laws concerning the protection of cultural heritage more generally?  Access to pharmaceuticals in developing nations, or the misappropriation of traditional remedies that are repackaged as licensed and patented medicines?

p.10: the author discusses the impact of the rise of Google and Facebook and smartphones on the music of ‘the less powerful’, but doesn’t really explain what this impact is, why these impacts are negative, and for what reason.  What evidence is there to support these assertions?  If Google and Facebook can allow for mass distribution, does this not have an impact on preserving cultures?  Are we concerned about access or remuneration?  Are we concerned about what gets advertised, and becomes popular?  If so, why does music from cultural or minority identity communities suffer more than niche genres of music, such as classical, heavy metal or spoken-word?  How is power being used, and defined, in this context?

p.14: – the author states ‘The lowering of financial stakes had a disempowering effect, and in environments where rampant sharing is normal practice, and where few people other than advertisers seem to be making much money, who does one sue? And, perhaps as importantly, why and for how much?’ – what is the relevance here specifically for the article?  What is it we’re concerned about?  Is it remuneration?  If so, again, what distinguishes niche forms of community-produced music from less developed nations or communities from producers of niche music who may be ‘Western’?  Why is it different from creators of niche forms of heavy metal, punk or classical music?  If, as some studies indicate, less than 10% of artists secure 90% of the revenue from recorded music, why is this issue more pressing for minority cultures?  Are we concerned about remuneration?  If so, why?  Are we instead concerned about access and promotion of these forms of music?  If so, do platforms such as YouTube help to promote what might otherwise be generally unavailable?  Are we concerned about cultural mis/appropriation?  If so, then why does the Internet make this any different? The argument the author is trying to make here is not sufficiently clear.

4) Is the article well written?

The article is well-written, but I feel that the main arguments of the author need to be made clearer, as the author tends to jump from point to point in a somewhat confusing manner.  I am still not altogether clear what the main concern is that needs to be addressed, and why.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

Please see the above comments, in particular section 3, for more information.

Reviewer:

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes. The author makes a concise and informed contribution to current debates around digital media, copyright, and ethnomusicology.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

I think it would be of great help to readers were the author to more fully describe current positions in ethnomusicology on the legal issues involved and discussed on pp. 11-13. Other than Fitzgerald et al., the most recent reference cited there is from 1997, and the standard cases of Paul Simon and Peter Gabriel have been very thoroughly rehearsed.

In this section, the author describes the legal issues essentially as they relate to how copyright fails to secure adequate remuneration for artists and communities beyond the industrial North. This seems to assume that what would be mete and just would be for non-Western musicians to be incorporated into market logics in the same way that (say) Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon apparently are, and for copyright reform to pursue this end. This position is open to debate. Why is it that the best we could hope for would be that all musical forms everywhere that can be recorded, should enter market systems as a way to ensure justice? Should other forms of unremunerated cultural labour be similarly treated, and if so, which ones, and why? Put another way, the possibilities and potentials of copyright disruption and more widespread access to digital music recordings for these non-Western musicians are not mentioned. Rather, these musicians are simply to be protected from the worst excesses of the Western market by Western law embedding them appropriately in these markets (and it becomes even harder to provide such protection in digital contexts – as the author puts it: ‘who does one sue? And, perhaps as importantly, why and for how much?’). This is a curious position for an argument apparently opposed to neocolonial cultural appropriation, and it is possible to read this position as a kind of salvage ethnomusicology committed to (presumably Western) ideas of cultural authenticity and ownership.

No reference is given for the neologism ‘produser’, although Bruns is usually mentioned in this context.

Also: Novak, David (2011) ‘The Sublime Frequencies of New Old Media’, Public Culture, 23:3, pp. 603-634.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?

It might be good for the author to consider the availability of GarageBand on the iPhone, given that the argument opens with a discussion of an iPhone ad and a statement that a multitrack recording phone application is not available or was not at the time the author began developing Twotrack. Does GarageBand not perform this function satisfactorily, and if not why not? Some discussion of timelines here would also help – when was Twotrack, what was around then, how does that compare to now and so on. Are these technologies available and in use in the authors fieldsite in PNG?

The author could also be a bit more cautious in terms of describing the positions s/he is critiquing. For example, the statement: ‘most people are still primarily consuming music passively’. This statement arises in a discussion of ethnocentric accounts of the impact of technology on music. But as ethnomusicology and other disciplines of music research would imply, we need to be careful about the value terms we use to describe practices around music. ‘Listening passively’ does not capture the range of activities involved in engaging with music technology (e.g. in Tia De Nora or Marj Kibby). Active and passive, aside from their normative implications, do not really map readily onto digital music, and the paper thus risks reproducing a binary (production/consumption, active/passive) it is ostensibly targeting.

Similarly, sometimes the phrasing is rather broad: the author refers to ‘neoliberal capitalism’ (p.8), but this seems so vast an entity that is hard to say exactly what it would be about it that would have the implications the author is describing.

Are peer production, digital media content piracy, and ‘free’ services like Facebook equivalent? (pp. 6, 8). If they are, the author should perhaps explain how. Distinctions between platforms and practices are being glossed here.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes. The author could be a bit clearer in their signposting, for example, at the intro: ‘I conclude with some practical suggestions as to directions that might be productively pursued in the near future.’ I was not clear who these suggestions would be directed towards.

The first section of the article (up to about p. 10) seems to circle around somewhat, so that piracy, ‘other’ places that are not the Western digerati, and the possibilities or otherwise of mobile phones for music production are all mentioned twice. The author could streamline this and thereby sharpen the argument.

There are also a few typos and minor issues with grammar through the article, it could stand a thorough proof.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

The author makes some very important points about the roles, responsibilities, and possibilities for productive action available to academic ethnomusicologists at the present juncture (pp. 15-16). It would be productive to expand on this.

The debate here also can be phrased in terms of anxieties about the loss of status and credibility ethnomusicologists will suffer in the face of the ‘open’ (and probably just differently broken) archive. The author could explore this further.

For ethnomusicologists (never mind those whom they encounter in the course of their work), there are on the one hand ostensibly ‘open’, profit-oriented entities like Youtube, and on the other the ‘closed’ archives, often administered by universities or other actors with interests in copyright and other forms of knowledge closure. The author could make more explicit what should be the core ethical imperatives of the discipline of ethnomusicology: economic justice for musicians? Open access to recordings for posterity? Something else? Are these made explicit in the referenced manifesto (p. 18)? Whose job is it to say what is music, and what recordings are worth saving? Is the question ultimately one about archive maintenance?