Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:19:54.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unpacking the gift: negotiating property and custody in archival hardcore blogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2013

Josh Heuman*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station TX 77843, USA E-mail: jmheuman@tamu.edu

Abstract

How is music appropriated and recirculated on the web, across different claims to authority over its movement? Complicating broad accounts of online ‘piracy’ or ‘sharing’, this paper explores rules of appropriation and recirculation in the field of archival hardcore blogging, in close readings of blogs that try to reconstruct a system of regulating principles and regulated practices. In relations among themselves, bloggers claim (and quarrel over) a non-proprietary ‘custodial’ authority over the music they post, which supports a range of privileges from attribution to exclusivity. Relations between bloggers and property-holders reveal intricate entanglements of different forms of authority (rather than straightforward oppositions between discrete logics of gift and commodity) – in which bands and labels might appeal to subcultural credibility in the same breath as legal copyright. While drawing on concepts of norm and gift that emphasise and valorise the sociality of appropriation, this paper insists on the ambivalence and contestation across different practices of appropriation, and between practices of appropriation and property – recovering an intricate interrelation among the legal, economic and social lives of musical works.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Appadurai, A. 1986. ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’, in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Appadurai, A. (New York, Cambridge), pp. 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aufderheide, P., and Jaszi, P. 2011. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, N. 2005. ‘The borrowed view: privacy, propriety, and the entanglements of property’, Law & Social Inquiry, 30/4, pp. 617–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borschke, M. 2012. ‘Ad hoc archivists: mp3 blogs and the generation of provenance’, Continuum, 26/1, 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production (New York, Columbia)Google Scholar
Burnett, R. 2011. ‘Internet and music’, in The Handbook of Internet Studies, ed. Consalvo, M. and Ess, C. (Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 440–50Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. 2009. ‘Hive-sourcing is the new out-sourcing: studying (old) industrial labor habits in new (consumer) labor clothes’, Cinema Journal, 49/1, pp. 160–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J., and Harrison, D. 2001. ‘The social organization of audio piracy on the Internet’, Media, Culture & Society, 23/1, pp. 7189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currah, A. 2007. ‘Managing creativity: the tensions between commodities and gifts in a digital networked environment’, Economy & Society, 36/3, pp. 476–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, C. 2002. ‘Credit where it's due: the law and norms of attribution’, Georgetown Law Journal, 95/1, pp. 49117Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York, Vintage)Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1977. ‘What is an author’, in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice (Ithaca, NY, Cornell), pp. 124–7Google Scholar
Frith, S. 1981. ‘“The magic that can set you free”: the ideology of folk and the myth of the rock community’, Popular Music, 1, pp. 159–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbert, D. 2011. ‘Creativity without copyright: anarchist publishers and their approaches to copyright protection’, in Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship, ed. Ghosh, S. and Molloy, R.P. (Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar), pp. 131–55Google Scholar
Hemmungs, Wirten E. 2006. ‘Out of sight and out of mind: on the cultural hegemony of intellectual property (critique)’, Cultural Studies, 20/2–3, pp. 282–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, M. 2002. Fan Cultures (New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Jenkins, H., Li, X., Krauskopf, A.D., with Green, J. 2008. ‘If it doesn't spread, it's dead: creating value in a spreadable marketplace’. http://convergenceculture.org/research/Spreadability_doublesidedprint_final_063009.pdf (accessed 15 March 2012)Google Scholar
Jones, S. 2002. ‘Music that moves: popular music, distribution and network technologies’, Cultural Studies, 16/2, pp. 213–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyshon, A. 2003. ‘Scary monsters? software formats, peer-to-peer networks, and the spectre of the gift’, Environment & Planning D, 21/5, pp. 533–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindvall, H. 2009. ‘Web sheriff is watching you’, The Guardian, 2 October. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/02/web-sheriff (accessed 15 March 2012)Google Scholar
Marshall, L. 2003. ‘For and against the industry: an introduction to bootleg collectors and tape traders’, Popular Music, 22/1, pp. 5772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, K., and Sprigman, C. 2006. ‘The piracy paradox: innovation and intellectual property in fashion design’, Virginia Law Review, 92, pp. 1687–777Google Scholar
Rodman, G., and Vanderdonckt, C. 2006. ‘Music for nothing or, I want my MP3: the regulation and recirculation of affect’, Cultural Studies, 20/2–3, pp. 245–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. 2007. ‘The questionable use of custom in intellectual property’, Virginia Law Review, 93, pp. 1899–982Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2009. ‘Custom, comedy and the value of dissent’, Virginia Law Review in Brief, 95, pp. 1926Google Scholar
Schultz, M. 2006. ‘Fear and norms and rock & roll: what jam bands can teach us about persuading people to obey copyright law’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 21, pp. 651728Google Scholar
Schultz, M. 2007. ‘Copynorms: copyright law and social norms’, in Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Issues and Practices in the Digital Age, ed. Peter, Yu (New York, Praeger), pp. 201–35Google Scholar
Seltzer, W. 2010. ‘Free speech unmoored in copyright's safe harbor: chilling effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment’, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 24/1, pp. 171232Google Scholar
Sigal, J. 2010. ‘reflections on #musicblogocide2k10’. WFMU's Beware of the Blog, 19 February. http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2010/02/reflections-on-musicblogocide2k10.html (accessed 15 March 2012)Google Scholar
Straw, W. 1997. ‘Sizing up record collections. gender and connoisseurship in rock music culture’, in Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender, ed. Whiteley, S. (NewYork, Routledge), pp. 316Google Scholar
Styvén, M. 2007. ‘The intangibility of music in the digital age’, Popular Music & Society, 30/1, pp. 5374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, R. 2007. ‘Payment in credit: copyright law and subcultural creativity’, Law & Contemporary Problems, 70, pp. 135–74Google Scholar
Vaidhyanathan, S. 2003. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity (New York, New York University Press)Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. 2006. Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press)Google Scholar
Wu, T. 2008. ‘Tolerated use’, Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 31/4, pp. 617–36Google Scholar
Good Bad Music for Bad Bad Times. http://www.goodbadmusic.com/Google Scholar
Memories of Tomorrow. (offline)Google Scholar
Something I Learned Today. (offline)Google Scholar
Vinyl Punk. (offline)Google Scholar
Zen and the Art of Face Punching. http://zen-face-punch.blogspot.comGoogle Scholar
Good Bad Music for Bad Bad Times. http://www.goodbadmusic.com/Google Scholar
Memories of Tomorrow. (offline)Google Scholar
Something I Learned Today. (offline)Google Scholar
Vinyl Punk. (offline)Google Scholar
Zen and the Art of Face Punching. http://zen-face-punch.blogspot.comGoogle Scholar