After years of being subjected to a crusade against illegal downloading and file-sharing within a university setting, it was constructive to receive a different perspective on the issue through Mattelart’s article on piracy as a cause and effect of cultural globalization. He examines the use of piracy not for its criminal implications, but as a form of dissent against government-regulated media and as a way for the “have-nots” to access the same cultural products as those in major industrialized nations. While piracy is rampant in developing nations as well, since people will never cease to apply their ingenuity to “beat the system” and avoid having to pay for a product, the figures estimating corporate losses seem misleadingly large compared to the total income and net worth of these multinational, horizontally and vertically integrated corporations.
Mattelart astutely draws a connection between the development of the informal economy of piracy and the failure of governments and international organizations to provide access to cultural products. His statement “while piracy has connected Nigerians to ‘the globalized world, it does so by emphasizing [their] marginalization at the same time’, a marginalization which is reflected in the pictures marred by interference and scarcely audible soundtracks” indeed summarizes the state of affairs in cultural, technological, and information access in the developing world. Therefore, I feel that rather than attempting to eradicate piracy – which I think is impossible—a step towards more long-term corporate profitability would be to assist in ICT development efforts in Third World countries and the possibility of further opening these emerging markets. The ICT revolution will not happen overnight, but if standards of living are increased and the “have-nots” eventually have more readily-available access to information and international cultural products, media conglomerates will stand to profit from access to these markets. Piracy will never cease to exist, but perhaps given the option people will choose to obtain these legally, as their hands are tied from doing so at the moment.
I agree that content must be made available to many "have-nots". I also agree with your points about piracy. We just have to make sure that the smaller creators of content do get some compensation. While the large media companies can surely afford some more creative solutions to sharing content, the smaller independent artists can't have the same regulations applied.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with both your points, especially as Willow points out-ensuring that independent and smaller, more financially-tenuous record labels or film producers somehow get fairly compensated. In the case of music, coming from Seattle, a hotbed of creativity and independent music efforts-it's easy to see many of the artists, and even the labels are not primarily proft-driven. Local record stores survive because of faithful patronage and a genuine desire to discover and share new music. As terrible as it is, when a band or artist from this niche succeeds on a greater level, or sells their music to a more profit-driven enterprise, they might end up missing out on receiving funds they probably never even realized they were entitled to.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regard to media conglomerates investing in developing ICTs, couldn't that potentially contribute to more deeply embedding media piracy? Just in that, they are so used to getting content in this cheaper way, it might be harder for them, once new technologies become commonplace, to come to terms with paying what those media companies charge.
On the other hand, it's a proven marketing strategy to start by giving something away for free, wait until people "can't" live without it, then start charging for it. I doubt iTunes would be as successful as it is if our generation hadn't gone through a solid five years of free Napster downloads. Also: illegal drugs.
ReplyDelete