{"id":3573,"date":"2014-12-07T00:59:01","date_gmt":"2014-12-07T00:59:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/?page_id=3573"},"modified":"2014-12-07T23:48:35","modified_gmt":"2014-12-07T23:48:35","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-6-disruption-and-the-law\/peer-reviewed-articles\/peer-production-and-changing-norms-in-music-practice-an-ethnomusicological-perspective\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 Topics such as digital ownership, file-sharing and peer production online continue to be topical and of interest to scholars and the general public.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While a number of sources are provided throughout the article, I do not feel that these sources are sufficiently engaged with \u2013 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.\u00a0 The author, for example, frequently refers to the limiting and counter-productive nature of the copyright system \u2013 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.\u00a0 Particularly given the discussions about online production, references to works such as Lessig\u2019s \u2018Free Culture\u2019 or \u2018Remix\u2019, in which these issues are discussed in detail, or Reyman\u2019s \u2018The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property\u2019 may provide the author with concrete examples, with reference to legal literature, on the topic of restrictive intellectual property laws.\u00a0 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\u2019s \u2018Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?\u2019.\u00a0 As such, the discussion of the negative impact of copyright laws is essentially unreferenced, and under-developed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The author makes a number of assumptions that are not really supported or sufficiently proven throughout the text.\u00a0 They are as follows:<\/p>\n

p.1: – While for scholars in the field of ethnomusicology, the use of the term \u2018pygmy pop\u2019 and the associated concerns over cultural appropriation may be well understood, this may not necessarily be the case for the audience of the journal.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 With regard to its interaction with peer production \u2013 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 \u2018cross culture\u2019 use.\u00a0 If sharing is perceived as a benefit, why is cultural appropriation in itself a negative?\u00a0 Is it entirely to do with the economic dimension?\u00a0 Is it a lack of respect for the cultural underpinnings of that music form?<\/p>\n

p.2: – The author states \u2018The 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\u2019 \u2013 this assertion needs to be supported by evidence, and reference to academic or legal sources.\u00a0 What is the older cultural and industrial tradition, and how is it reflected in the international legal order?\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Are these not mutually opposed ideals?\u00a0 The author needs to do more in the article, I feel, to create a logical consistency between these two elements of the work.<\/p>\n

P 3: – references to different conceptualisations of creativity \u2013 this section needs more references on the \u2018western\u2019 approach, along with examples of how national or international legal systems limit creation through an author-centred conceptualisation of copyright.<\/p>\n

pp.3-4: – the discussion of creation provided here along with the personal anecdote doesn\u2019t appear to add to the article in any significant way.\u00a0 What is the author getting at here, and what is the relevance to the main arguments presented in the article?\u00a0 The importance of this section is unclear.\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t the discussion of the personal, individualised process described add weight to a \u2018western\u2019 conceptualization of creation, and if so, how does this relate to the main arguments?<\/p>\n

pp.6-7: I am not entirely sure what argument the author is making here \u2013 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).\u00a0 What does this mean for peer production?\u00a0 Are we concerned about people expecting music for free, or are we concerned about access?\u00a0 The author states that \u2018are 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\u2019 \u2013 but is this the case?\u00a0 Does evidence suggest that perceptions are changing?\u00a0 If so, where can this information be found?\u00a0 Are there analogies to earlier changes in markets?\u00a0 The author then jumps to talking about the intermediary providers, and their intention to sell advertising.\u00a0 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?\u00a0 If the advertising sold then facilitates \u2018free\u2019 access for individuals, is this necessarily negative?<\/p>\n

p.7: the author states \u2018Google could solve the problem by re-allocating resources, but that would threaten the very business model on which they rely\u2019.\u00a0 This is somewhat vague.\u00a0 Reallocate resources to what?\u00a0 Tackling copyright infringement?\u00a0 If so, why would it threaten their business model?\u00a0 What is the relevance of the business model for the main arguments of the paper?\u00a0 Are we concerned about peer-production, access, or protecting right-holders?\u00a0 How does this then impact on the perception, or use, of enforcement mechanisms online?\u00a0 This part of the argument does not seem particularly well explained.<\/p>\n

p.8: – the author states \u2018Rather 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\u2019 \u2013 this may be the case, but these statements needs to be sourced, and better explained.\u00a0 What is the relevance to the article?\u00a0 Why are these new business models negative, or are they not?\u00a0 What impact does this have for peer-production\/cultural heritage\/copyright protection, and how does it relate to cultural appropriation?<\/p>\n

p.9: – the author states \u2018The law has perhaps never been so out of step with social practice as it currently is with recorded music.\u2019\u00a0 This is quite emotive, but is there any evidence to support it?\u00a0 What are examples of these laws?\u00a0 Is recorded music so different, or so extreme?\u00a0 What about laws concerning popular protest, for example, or laws concerning the protection of cultural heritage more generally?\u00a0 Access to pharmaceuticals in developing nations, or the misappropriation of traditional remedies that are repackaged as licensed and patented medicines?<\/p>\n

p.10: the author discusses the impact of the rise of Google and Facebook and smartphones on the music of \u2018the less powerful\u2019, but doesn\u2019t really explain what this impact is, why these impacts are negative, and for what reason.\u00a0 What evidence is there to support these assertions?\u00a0 If Google and Facebook can allow for mass distribution, does this not have an impact on preserving cultures?\u00a0 Are we concerned about access or remuneration?\u00a0 Are we concerned about what <\/i>gets advertised, and becomes popular?\u00a0 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?\u00a0 How is power being used, and defined, in this context?<\/p>\n

p.14: – the author states \u2018The 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?\u2019 \u2013 what is the relevance here specifically for the article?\u00a0 What is it we\u2019re concerned about?\u00a0 Is it remuneration?\u00a0 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 \u2018Western\u2019?\u00a0 Why is it different from creators of niche forms of heavy metal, punk or classical music?\u00a0 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?\u00a0 Are we concerned about remuneration?\u00a0 If so, why?\u00a0 Are we instead concerned about access and promotion of these forms of music?\u00a0 If so, do platforms such as YouTube help to promote what might otherwise be generally unavailable?\u00a0 Are we concerned about cultural mis\/appropriation?\u00a0 If so, then why does the Internet make this any different? The argument the author is trying to make here is not sufficiently clear.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 I am still not altogether clear what the main concern is that needs to be addressed, and why.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Please see the above comments, in particular section 3, for more information.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes. The author makes a concise and informed contribution to current debates around digital media, copyright, and ethnomusicology.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 as the author puts it: \u2018who does one sue? And, perhaps as importantly, why and for how much?\u2019). 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.<\/p>\n

No reference is given for the neologism \u2018produser\u2019, although Bruns is usually mentioned in this context.<\/p>\n

Also: Novak, David (2011) \u2018The Sublime Frequencies of New Old Media\u2019, Public Culture<\/i>, 23:3, pp. 603-634.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2013 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?<\/p>\n

The author could also be a bit more cautious in terms of describing the positions s\/he is critiquing. For example, the statement: \u2018most people are still primarily consuming music passively\u2019. 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. \u2018Listening passively\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

Similarly, sometimes the phrasing is rather broad: the author refers to \u2018neoliberal capitalism\u2019 (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.<\/p>\n

Are peer production, digital media content piracy, and \u2018free\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes. The author could be a bit clearer in their signposting, for example, at the intro: \u2018I 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.<\/p>\n

The first section of the article (up to about p. 10) seems to circle around somewhat, so that piracy, \u2018other\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

There are also a few typos and minor issues with grammar through the article, it could stand a thorough proof.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2018open\u2019 (and probably just differently broken) archive. The author could explore this further.<\/p>\n

For ethnomusicologists (never mind those whom they encounter in the course of their work), there are on the one hand ostensibly \u2018open\u2019, profit-oriented entities like Youtube, and on the other the \u2018closed\u2019 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?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 Topics such as digital ownership, file-sharing and peer production online continue to be topical<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":0,"parent":3550,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3573"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3573"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3694,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3573\/revisions\/3694"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}