Music file sharers can be analysed through the prism of sub culture. Subcultures are often seen as un-official disaffected reactions to the traditional cultures of the day. Opposed to this is the notion that the “public has been conceived as a body of rational individuals, responsible citizens who are able to form their own opinion and express it through officially recognised democratic channels� (Thornton 1997). The Record Industry and other institutions opposed with file sharing have aligned themselves with these democratic channels through efforts such as legal battles and the formation of paid download services. Music file sharers act outside of these recognised channels as they are forced to operate outside the legal bounds of the public. Opponents to file sharing claim that file sharers operate for profit. With the exception of high profile servers such as Napster, there is little evidence of users earning money from their file sharing. Instead file sharers operate to spread what Thornton (1997) calls “sub-cultural capital�. Thornton believes the motivation to spread “sub-cultural capital� lies in the fact there is a shared respect for the accumulation of ‘knowledge’ in the file sharing community. This can take the form of knowledge of file sharing servers, programs and hardware or the knowledge of music in the sub-culture.
The music file sharing subculture, whilst facilitating music sharing on a mass scale, tends to reduce the formation of personal bonds to the reduced cues and chatting facilities of many servers such as Kazaa. However programs such as Warez have overcome this with the use of genre specific user driven chat rooms. These online communities facilitate ‘anonymous’ identity expression in a safe environment. This is essential in the formation of a subculture as the characteristics of the subculture are “negotiated by participants through talk, actions…and other behaviours�(Jean 2004). Where the file sharers communicate with each other is where the identity of the subculture and the individual are formed. This is also where “alternative cultural capital� (Fiske 1992) is produced. Flew (1992) believes this is because along with MP3’s fans trade “information, gossip, pictures and opinions".
Subcultures inscribed with identity are highly compatible with “media rich, user driven, group narrative –type online communities� (Ebare 2003). Ebare (2003) believes even individuals who would not identify with a subculture may “desire a high degree of control over the circumstances of their participation in an online music community� as this is observed in online communities, which are of a non-musical orientation.
References
Ebre, S (2003) “ Digital Music and Sub Cultures, Sharing Files, Sharing Styles� First Monday, Issue 9 retrieved August 16, 2004 from first monday
Fiske, J (1992).’The Cultural economy of fandom’ in Lewis L(ed.),The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. Routledge: London pp 30-54 ISBN 0415078210
Flew , T. (2002) New Media an introduction , Melbourne: Oxford University Press ISBN 0195508599
Jean, A (2003) " Subcultures and Sonic Proliferation" retrieved Sept 20 from [1]
Thornton, Sarah (1995). “Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital.� Cambridge: Polity Press ISBN 0819562971
Music File Sharing
identity
Subcultures
Niche Music
Morals & Ethics
Disintermediation
