Monday, March 23, 2009

Magic and Production



Very interesting post at non-washer-upper's blog on the subject of the internet, 'the music industry' and the PRS/Google dispute. While focused quite specifically on that particular dispute and the notion that musical production is something which needs no monetary funding, it's especially worthwhile for pinpointing two very pervasive myths created by the internet, one at the level of distribution and the other at the level of consumption, both having deleterious effects on production. One, the notion that the internet is administered by 'little guys' as opposed to gigantic corporations. Hence, you have the absurd, but curiously successful, self-presentation of Google/YouTube as defenders of freedom against the Peforming Rights Society for Music, who are essentially an arm of a trade union; and linked to this, the idea that file-sharing is somehow anti-establishment, notwithstanding the intimate links between the likes of BitTorrent and the corporations they supposedly subvert. Two, the post notes the way the internet is used and consumed, where cultural products are 'some sort of naturally appearing resource, like water or oxygen'. This, then, is essentially a magical process. Music, videos, films, texts, they all just pass through the ether in seconds, without any trace of production (or any remuneration to the producer). 



Whether or not this is actually 'killing music' or fulfilling the hysterical anti-piracy warnings now found on much cultural product is a moot point, but this magical thinking is one of the most under-remarked-upon facets of the way the internet changes habits and perceptions, as the point of distribution, let alone production recedes ever further from view. I recall my surprise recently at finding that a friend of a friend worked for Amazon, as if the entire process ran at the same level as the automated 'recommendations' on the website - but obviously these things are made, distributed and administered in a very concrete (and union-bashing) manner. This links in with a few posts at Ads without Products recently, on how this works with respect to journalism and print, where the internet often serves to actually reinforce, rather than dismantle, the old boy networks, by making writing into a hobby rather than a job (my own experience in this has been rather less grim, although mainly because of a prior willingness to spend years on benefits). In all this, you can see, very faintly indeed, the outlines of a genuinely utopian system of distribution, where automation and speed makes the possibility of a non-monetary economy viable, erasing borders and all that Hardt-Negri fun stuff. And much of the opposition to blogs has come from those clearly driven by snobbery and fear of the competition. Nonetheless, the means of production that, underneath the magical surface, actually enables these things to come into being, is still owned by the same people it ever was. 

Images are of Amazon's distribution centre in Swansea.

3 Comments:

Blogger Adam Rothstein said...

I can't say that I agree, precisely.

While the "Robin Hood" belief of file-sharing is certainly a distortion of reality, I think there is something to be said for the Internet as a "revolutionary" force.

It seems to me, once you buy in to the Internet, getting yourself the connection and the hardware, you are in a realm that is not magical, but digital, allowing for a reduction of material production cost to zero. Now, of course intellectual production is still of real value, but the fact that the "tools of digital production" are in the hands of the intellectual worker, they have, in some means more than before, seized the means of (digital) production for themselves.

The problem I think you are looking at is one of distribution. Google, it seems to me, has jumped to the fore of digital production by realizing the scenario, and finding ways of gleaning profit by trafficking in distribution, e.g. ad taxes appended to free digital tools like YouTube. The workers get the digital tools for free, but have to go through the proprietary networks in order to be able to sell their own product. In other words, we may have captured the factories, but the bosses still own the marketplaces and all the trucks. To be competitive with the YouTube digital marketplace, many artists producing their own product are forced to give it away for free. Sure, you can AdSense, and maybe get a cut of Google's distribution charge, but distribution is still largely out of the workers' hands.

So, I would say that digital technology and the Internet has revolutionized production; only the capitalist abstraction has moved up the chain. Can we liberate the distribution networks? Maybe. But, I think Google will come to realize (as consumers get smarter) that advertising is not as profitable as they think it is, and distribution margins will fall considerably. So, I don't think the workers should be rushing to try and take this model of profitability either, by being reactionary and either defending old property models or trying to institute a union in the place of Google.

I think the fact is, the very notions of property are shifting when it comes to digital production. Trying to siphon some surplus-value out of antiquated notions of commodity ("albums", "books", and "video" as fungible culture-products) is an attempt to chase the dialectic in the wrong direction. If we (those intellectual-culture producers) can develop new models of what it means to be "product" in our production, we can beat the Google's to the punch.

Just a quick example: the owning of a musician's voice. In the old days, a musician sold his/her voice in live acts. Then, a commercial interest rented this voice for radio broadcast, and used their distribution to make profit off the free-airwaves. Then, they packaged the voice by contract and sold records. The artist went along with it, because s/he didn't have the means to sell records on his/her own. Now, any artist with a computer can record his/her own voice, and even broadcast it. Commercial interests are trying to maintain a hold on the distribution, but if the artists move around this (not selling via YouTube or Amazon) then their profit model falls apart.

I wrote an essay about the new digital model of production, and other things: http://www.brutepress.com/Home/ithe-brutalitariani/walter-benjamin-s-blog It might make more sense in that format than in an overly long blog comment.

9:18 pm  
Blogger owen hatherley said...

Thanks, these are all very good points, and I think your distribution/production distinction is probably right. However I would stand by my claim that in terms of consumption the internet is full of magical thinking, and this would remain so if it is distribution rather than production which is not thought about. Also, though I totally take your points on the various utopian implications, in the present circumstances it still serves to immiserate many cultural practitioners, at least until they work out how to actually make money through these distribution networks - something corporations have certainly worked out how to do.

2:42 pm  
Blogger utopia or bust said...

Images are commodities, of course. And the thing about the use of fiber optic cable to trade products, over the internet that is, is that the marginal cost of production is so low that those who steal from the producer are not cutting into their profits very much at all.

And if the thieves like the products they steal, they might even come back for more and pay for it. I know I have done that with music I have downloaded in the past.

Thanks for the post.

6:23 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home