Official channels versus mobilization tactic

When a strong perpetrator attacks a weak target, many people feel this is unfair. Their anger can be decreased when they think fairness is being guaranteed by bodies such as watchdogs, courts as well as expert panels. In spite of this, these procedures often favor those with more money and power.

 In addition, they move matters from the public stage to narrow arenas where experts such as lawyers take centerstage. Formal processes usually are slow; therefore public anger dies down while the matter is being considered. For all these reasons, influential perpetrators time and again wish that targets refer matters to official channels.

The use of official channels does not seem clear in the fight over file sharing. The court is the main official channel involved since the music industry prosecutes peer to peer users and Web sites such as Bit Torrent indexing. But the courts are not only being used to reduce outrage, they are a major means of attack.

In January 2008 for example, criminal and civil charges were filed in Swedish courts against the Pirate Bay by IFPI (International Federation of the Pornographic Industry). The Pirate Bay was considered to be the number one source of illegal music, after victorious court actions against two formerunlicensed services namely Grosser and Kazak. The judgment of The Pirate Bay was the latest episode in aggressive legal actions against persons and groups involved in file sharing.

As much as the victims of attack time and again turn to official channels for compensation this is often a blunder.

Whistle blowers, for example, when they suffer retaliations for speaking out, usually take their concerns to an appeal body such as watchdog, anticorruption agencies and auditor general. According to Martin (2003), these seldom provide an effective response. Therefore, it is far more effective to take the matter to public audiences. Similarly, for file sharers who come under attack, it is far more effective to seek publicity than to defend in the courts.But as much as defending in a court is necessitous, it should not be the only response.

Court cases can be also used as a creative means of publicity, though the efficacy of such an approach is questionable at best. For instance, during the Pirate Bay Trial, the suspects tweeted from the courtroom, seeking to increase awareness of the trial through the viral spread of information through the use of the hash tag (#).

In conclusion, the industry has been most successful when using tactics such as devaluation and reinterpretation but other tactics such as cover–up or official channels has not been used in ways to reduce anger, and its use of tactics such as bullying has fueled opinion against it. Legal actions have at times succeeded in the short term, but with the longer term outcome of hurting industry’s reputation, in particular by placing industry as the agent of injustice.

In relation to answer the question that ‘Are all remixes innovators or thieves? Should you pay for every sample used in a recording or piece of video art?’  

In my view, all remixes are thieves since it is considered to be music piracy. Music piracy is the copying and distribution of copies from a piece of music for which the copyright holding company, composer and recording artist did not agree. Therefore, it vital that one pays for every sample used in a recording.

Reference

Demers, J, (2006). Steal this music: How intellectual property law affects musical creativity. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Alderman, J(2001). Sonic boom: Napster, MP3, and the new pioneers of music. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus.

Hinduja, S (2006). Music piracy and crime theory. LFB scholarly Publications.