Who Owns Culture?

Who Owns Culture?: Digital Music and its Discontents By Georgina Ustik (Student #: 11316292) Under the supervision of Niels van Doorn Master’s in Media Studies: New Media and Digital Culture University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Humanities February, 2018

Abstract

This thesis seeks to explore how the internet and emerging technologies affect legal and cultural ownership of music. First, the concepts of legal and cultural ownership, value, and labor will be explored from a Marxist perspective. Next, culture will be defined as a complex way in which individuals connect their identity to community. Culture’s ownership will then be explored from two perspectives — legal ownership as applied via intellectual property, and cultural ownership, as demonstrated with cultural appropriation. These arguments will be set in the context of discriminatory systems and racial inequality, identifying ownership as a problem of access. These arguments will ultimately be applied to music, and how its value and ownership has transformed with the affordances offered by the internet, transformations under informational capitalism, and subsequent acceleration of globalization. This theoretical framework will then be applied to three case studies, each from a different aspect of digital music — the Syrian artist Omar Souleyman, the music blog and label Awesome Tapes from Africa, and the distribution of the Wu-Tang Clan album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. These case studies reveal how music ownership, from both a cultural and legal perspective, as set forth in the theoretical framework, are carried out on an individual level. Ultimately, this thesis argues the Internet opened up new modes of music distribution and interaction that do not fit into traditional ideas of ownership.

Keywords: Marx, Ownership, Private Property, Informational Capitalism, Culture, Digital Music, Exploitation, Platform Capitalism, Streaming, Globalization

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4 2. What is ownership? 8 2.1 Marx and Ownership 8 2.2 Value in Ownership 9 2.3 The Worker 10 2.4 Race and Marx: A Critique 12 3. Who owns culture? 14 3.1 Culture 14 3.2 The Cultural Industries 15 3.3 Intellectual Property 16 3.4 Property vs. Culture 18 3.5 Copyright is not neutral, and never has been 20 3.6 Cultural Appropriation 22 3.7 Where does music fit into all of this? 25 4. Enter: the internet 26 4.1 Information Capitalism 27 4.2 The New Class System and Knowledge Worker 28 4.3 Digital Culture 31 5. Music 34 5.1 Music as cultural object 35 5.2 The Music Industry, Pre-internet 36 5.2.1 A short history of the music industry 36 5.2.2 The music industry structure, pre-internet 37 5.2.3 The role of the artist 39 5.2.4 Marx and Music 40 5.3 The Music Industry, Post-Internet 42 5.3.1 Fast-changing formats 43 5.3.2 Ownership is threatened 44 5.3.3 Streaming 47 5.3.4 The DIY digital artist 49

5.3.5 Music’s cultural ownership 52 6. Methodology 54 7. Case Studies 56 7.1 Omar Souleyman 56 7.2 Awesome Tapes from Africa 62 7.3 Once Upon a Time in Shaolin 68 8. Discussion 74 9. Conclusion 79 Acknowledgements 81 References 82

Chapter 1: Introduction

Culture and its products have long existed at the point of tension between the public and the private. While linked to identity and co-created through constant interaction, culture produces unique aesthetics and goods that attract people’s desires to participate. However, as existing within capitalist structures, finding ways to control these cultural products has long been a source of tension, further exacerbated by the unequal social dynamics that encourage ownership by the few, and not the collective. Within the last couple of decades, the world has undergone a transformation that has disrupted almost every aspect of daily life. Everything from the way in which people communicate to how business is carried out has taken on a new structure. Capitalism itself transformed, allowing for a new digital economy where data has become a highly valuable resource, and labor has become increasingly precarious. (Fuchs, Castells, Terranova, Gill & Pratt) The world moved online, putting people in closer contact than ever before, accelerating the effects of globalization. Networks between individuals allow for rapid cross-cultural influences, and the emergence of Web 2.0 has allowed for user participation on a whole new scale. (O’Reilly, Carr) Traditionally held notions of value and ownership have been upended, and virtually no industry has gone untouched. Music sits at the forefront of this digital transformation. The music industry has long existed as a model of cultural control, an organized system of contracted labor that keeps artists in exploitative positions. (Greene) Since its origins the industry’s structure has undergone waves of centralization and decentralization. The internet disrupted the music industry possibly more than any other cultural industry. By changing the very format of music, allowing it to move faster and more freely than ever before and leaving it vulnerable to legal and cultural stealth, the internet undermined the value of music, and ownership by extension. (Kasaras, Sterne) As humans grapple with the emergence of new technologies, capitalist restructuring, and struggles over control of identity, the question of who owns music is more complicated than ever.

Yet this question is also as important as ever. As society is undergoing a restructuring to keep up with the affordances offered by the internet, ownership over cultural products determines who can derive value from them, as well as who has a voice, and who does not. The internet is ripe with potential for allowing traditional power structures to be disrupted — its affordances allow previously marginalized voices a platform on a scale never seen before. But hegemonic forces are already taking control of digital informational flows in the form of powerful platforms which mediate the ways in which we go about our daily lives, and consume culture. In this context, this thesis will attempt to explore the ways in which music’s ownership is being challenged by the affordances offered by the internet, revolving largely around a theoretical framework as set forth in chapters 2-5. Chapter 2 will begin by looking at what the concept of ownership means through a Marxist lens, presenting the idea that private property is inherently exploitative, and ownership is stealth from the public. This chapter will also explore the meaning of value, commodities, and the exploitative labor-capitalist relations that are bound within both. This chapter will end with a brief critique of Marx through the lens of race theory, and a short exploration into how racism exacerbates already exploitative worker-capitalist relations. (Cox, Reich) Chapter 3 will attempt to address the question: Who owns culture? First, it will look at culture as a complex object, laden with significance and identity politics. (Hall, Williams) Then the cultural industries will be introduced as the systematized way in which people have derived value from cultural products via legal ownership, or intellectual property. (Towse, Adorno & Horkheimer) Then, the ways in which private property and culture come directly into conflict will be explored, as well as how intellectual property has been used as a tool of discrimination. (Greene, McDonald) The ways in which products are culturally owned will be addressing via the topic of cultural appropriation. (Ziff and Rao, Ahmed) Chapter 3 ultimately argues that ownership, from both a legal and cultural sense, is dependent upon access, which determines who can profit off of culture.

Chapter 4 is an exploration of the ways in which the internet has transformed how capitalism functions. This chapter introduces the affordances set forth by Web 2.0, as well as how this has led to the emergence of information capitalism, which comes with new potential for exploitative labor practice. This chapter also engages with the rise of platforms, the ways in which the internet transformed labor, and the importance of data to the new economy. (Srnicek) Chapter 5 attempts to address these topics in the context of digital music. First, by introducing music as a cultural object, and then by comparing the music industry pre- and post-internet. This chapter argues that pre-internet, the music industry was a strictly organized network of labors, controlled by labels via contracts. Shifts in centralization and decentralization led to swings in access for marginalized groups, but sets artist-label relations ultimately in the context of Marxist ideas of exploitative labor practice. The post-internet subsection explores how the internet lowers barriers for music production, distribution, and promotion. The introduction of the mp3 allowed for music to move quickly to every corner of the globe, leaving it vulnerable to copyright infringement. (Sterne, Kasaras) Piracy and a shift in attitude towards music consumption threw the music industry into crisis, forcing it to restructure and find value via music streaming platforms, which replaced the music label as the new hegemonic industry forces. As artists are left in a more precarious position than ever, the ways in which they derive value from networks is explored. (Baym) This chapter will end with a discussion of how the internet transformed cultural ownership over music, and allowed it to be easily detached from its context, leaving it more vulnerable than ever to cultural appropriation. This will conclude the literature review. Chapter 6 is the methodology section, which will briefly introduce the three case studies and illuminate why the case study was chosen as the method to illustrate the theories set forth. The case studies will be briefly introduced. Chapter 7 will explore the three case studies — Syrian artist Omar Souleyman, music blog and label Awesome Tapes from Africa, and distribution method of the album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin — via primary and secondary texts such as interviews, profiles, and news reports. This

will follow with a discussion in Chapter 8, where the case studies will be compared and set in the context of the theoretical framework set forth in chapters 2-5. This will end with a brief conclusion in Chapter 9. While much research on digital music’s ownership already exists, by conducting theory-based research on ownership’s meaning over cultural products, this thesis seeks to address how the emergence of the internet complicated ideas of digital music ownership, from both a legal and cultural perspective. By taking a broad approach from a Marxist perspective in order to show larger exploitative practices, and reveal where existing theories of ownership fit awkwardly with music as a digital object, it will approach the question: Who owns music in the digital age?

Chapter 2: What is ownership?

Property has been more than simply an imaginative or symbolic concept; it has been the medium through which struggles between individual and collective goals have been refracted. – K.J. Greene (344)

2.1 Marx and Ownership

What does it mean to own? Ownership is the act of taking something – a product, property, or idea – and exerting claims over it. In capitalist society, this is done through legal means, wherein an individual or group is granted the rights over something, and commandeers the economic properties of it. It is exerting control over goods that led anarchists and Marxists to think of private property as an act of injustice. The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon decried “Property is theft!” (La propriété, c'est le vol !). In his 1840 book, What Is Property?: or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, Proudhon declared: If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once... Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? (55-56) To anarchists such as Proudhon, property was the way the market controlled people. Proudhon was an influence to Karl Marx, who claimed that property was the “appropriation of human life”: Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when we directly possess, eat, drink, wear, inhabit it, etc., in short, when we use it. (Marx and Bottomore 159)

Our individual desire to own is what drives us to privatize, taking objects away from the public’s use. Ownership is the act of cornering an object and its uses off from everyone else as much as it is about adding to our own individual wealth. To Marx, it is this commandeering of public resources and goods that is the basis of exploitation: “Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” (Marx, Karl, et al. 484) Private property is an act of appropriation, and appropriation operates upon a system of control and exploitation.

2.2 Value in ownership

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of value includes the following: (1) The monetary worth of something (market price) (2) A fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged (3) Relative worth, utility, or important (4) Something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable… (Merriam-Webster) Value, therefore, refers to both a constructed, economic value, such as a market price, as well as an intrinsic one, one that serves a higher calling, such as a principle. The conflict between these two definitions is what drives the fundamental problem of commodified culture. Ownership allows us to access and profit from this constructed value. When one owns the economic properties of a good, property, or idea, they can then profit off of the value of it, making it commoditized. Marx wrote of commodities as capitalism’s fundamental units, and the capitalist economy itself is based upon the accumulation of these commodities. (Marx, “Outlines of the Critique” 80)

To Marx, there are two kinds of value: “use-value” and “exchange-value”. As explained by Steve Keen in “Use-Value, Exchange Value, and the Demise of Marx's Labor Theory of Value”, Use-value is intrinsic usefulness, or how an object satisfies needs and wants. (3) Exchange-value, which is not intrinsic, is the price determined by the relativity of the market. (3) In his labor theory of value, Marx argues exchange-value is derived from labor time. (3) Value, therefore, has a social dimension that allows the market to function and allow commodities to operate within it. This idea is mirrored in the work of French Marxist philosopher Henri Lefebvre: “Trade is… both a social and an intellectual phenomenon… Commodities arrive at the market-place already laden with significance.” (qtd. In Hebdige 17) Economic exchange comes at the cost of exploitative social relations. The power dynamics and inequalities that existed in the conditions in which the good was created influence the good’s value upon its arrival to the marketplace. Marxist ideas of value and the intrinsic exploitative nature of the market are important when grappling with the complexities of cultural ownership. Culture is shared and community-based, which makes it vulnerable to influence and stealth. Because of this, when placed in the context of the market, huge new opportunities for exploitation and inequality are opened up. The losers in capitalist systems are very often the workers who themselves created the cultural goods.

2.3 The Worker

An essential aspect of ownership and the nature of capitalist exploitation is the role of the worker and their relation to the capitalist. While the worker or laborer spends labor time to produce, they often don’t see the profits of their labor. The Marxist idea of “surplus value”, as explained by George Brenkert in “Freedom and Private Property in Marx”, illustrates this relationship between the worker and capitalist: “Modern (capitalist) private property is the power possessed by private individuals in the means of production which allows them to dispose as they will of the

worker's labor-power.” (123) While the worker is employed and compensated, what they produce is more valuable than the sum of their labor. This idea of “surplus value” or “unpaid labor”, where the worker is purposefully paid less than he produces, is the main goal of production in capitalism. The capitalist’s ability to “dispose as they will of the worker's’ labor-power” keeps the worker vulnerable in the hands of the capitalist. (123) Furthermore, surplus-value production “costs the worker labour but the capitalist nothing, and… becomes the legitimate property of the capitalist”. (Marx “Capital” 731) Therefore, capitalism and private property operate at the expense of the worker. In wage-labor systems, workers are paid to produce a product, but once it is made, it is transferred elsewhere, severing ties between the product and the producer: “labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction.” (Marx “Economic and Philosophic” XXXiX) Workers’ “labor-power”, or their ability to produce, is sold to the capitalist for a wage, yet there is no equal exchange for the profit that the capitalist reaps. The worker then feels a sense of alienation from the product they produce, the fruit of their labor, as well as their work itself, upon its appropriation at the hands of the capitalist as it is no longer theirs. (Marx “Economic and Philosophic” 5) The role of the worker in capitalism is important to address regarding ownership in that it is the fundamental relationship between the capitalist and worker that private property relies upon. Because of systematized exploitation, workers are left in a state of alienation. When it comes to the cultural industries and their products, capitalism keeps in place systems where certain groups are continuously making money off of the culture of others. This, of course, continues within the new dynamics set forth by the internet and a new digital economy, but creates a very different kind of value and exploitation, as labor itself transforms. What Marx failed to include however was that this alienation and exploitation is not the same for everyone working as laborers. Social inequalities that exist in the world and industries pervade capitalism and further antagonize its exploitations.

2.4 Race and Marx: A Critique

“You can’t have capitalism without racism.” - Malcolm X (Breitman et al. 122-124)

One aspect of capitalism that is noticeably lacking attention in Marxist theory, and for which his work has been critiqued, is that of the relationship between race and capitalism. As Marxists extol again and again, capitalism is exploitation. It is based off the antagonistic relationship between the capitalist and the worker. It should come as no surprise, then, that the rise of capitalism correlated with that of possibly the most exploitative worker-capitalist relationship to ever exist – colonialist slavery. 15th century Europe saw an expanding market due to the rise in maritime trade. (Mahapatra) To deal with the subsequent short labor supply and increased demand for trade goods – as well as a general increased interest in exploration – European countries took to the seas for new trading partners, and their encounters with new lands led to colonization, leaving them huge tracts of land, and not enough labor to turn it profitable. (Mahapatra) Enter: slavery. It was at this point in time that slavery became the engine of industrialization to the US and UK, especially. (Blackburn) Colonialism and slavery were capitalist inventions, inflicted upon populations for economic gain through the filters of racial bias. Modern capitalism is seen by many as further propagating social inequalities that began here, and that racism, and other forms of discrimination, are inherent to capitalism’s functions. In the essay “Labor in White Skin: Race and Working-class History”, David Roediger reflects on Marx and racism. According to Roediger, Marx did not take black populations as a serious industrial force in the labor market, and Marx himself claimed the ex-slave population “will probably become small squatters, as in Jamaica”. (Roediger) He largely ignored race’s role in exploitative labor systems, allowing it to continue to grow and evolve outside Marxist discourse on exploitation.

The sociologist Oliver Cox was an early adopter of the theory that racism is a function of capitalism: “it should not be forgotten that, above all else, the slave was a worker whose labor was exploited in production for profit in a capitalist market. It is this fundamental fact which identifies the Negro problem in the United States with the problem of all workers regardless of color.” (Cox xxxii) He claimed that race relations “are labor capital-profit relations; therefore, race relations are proletarian bourgeois relations and hence political-class relations”. (Cox 336) Racism is yet another tool that was used to feed the exploitative monster of capitalism. Both capitalism and racism are systems that organized people into the “haves” and “have-nots” – those that profited and those that faced continual exploitation. Post slavery, laws and institutions were held in place in the United States that disallowed the black population from owning property, voting, or participating in society on a very basic level. This had many effects, one of the largest which was that the black population was never allowed to accumulate wealth. This has been the subject of numerous economic studies. For example, Michael Reich’s 1974 paper, “The Economics of Racism”, claimed that “racism is a key mechanism for the stabilization of capitalism and the legitimization of inequality”. (107) By looking at census data regarding the correlation of wage and ethnicity through a Marxist lens, he argues that most workers are affected by racism and that “racism is likely to take firm root in a society that breeds an individualistic and competitive ethos”. (112) Racism and capitalism go hand in hand. When approaching the topic of culture, a concept that is grounded in identity, race is an unavoidable, and even central, topic. It is important to keep in mind that capitalism works most efficiently when already marginalized groups are being exploited. While this thesis does not attempt to take race on as its main argument, systems of inequality, such as racism, are important and unavoidable aspects to discussions of exploitation in the contemporary music industry, and, therefore, discussions of ownership.

Chapter 3: Who owns culture?

3.1 Culture In 1976, Welsh Marxist Raymond Williams published “Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society”. According to Williams, culture has three categories of application: (i) the independent and abstract noun which describes a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development... (ii) the independent noun… which indicates a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general... (iii) the independent and abstract noun which describes the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity. This seems often now the most widespread use: culture is music, literature, painting and sculpture, theatre and film. (Williams 90) Therefore, culture is a process of development, as well as a way of life. One’s own culture can be identified by asking what are the “general causes” and “trends” that manifest in “everyday life”. (qtd. In Hebdige 18) Daily life creates meaning, and distinct patterns of daily life form when members of a group of people are in constant contact with one another. This results in the creation of a common aesthetic identity, resulting in unique cultural products. Culture is a crucial part of our very identities as individuals and members of groups. Sociology theorist Stuart Hall claimed that it is through culture that we connect our identity as people to a larger collective in that it “bridges the gap between the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’ – between the personal and the public worlds. (Culture) helps to align our subjective feelings with the objective places we occupy in the social and cultural world.” (Hall 276) Our relationship to culture is both spiritual and earthly, abstract and concrete. It is how we participate in a larger collective, making it social in nature. It is formed through interactions with the immediate surroundings and other people that one comes into contact with in daily life. In Nations and Nationalism, philosopher Ernest Gellner said: “...culture is now the necessary shared medium... within which alone the members of the society can breathe and survive and produce.

For a given society it must be one in which they can all breathe and speak and produce; so it must be the same culture”. (37-8) In this sense, culture is also public. It is a co-creation, and shared between the self and other members of one's community. It is worth acknowledging that cultures, particularly when linked to nationalism, can have violent histories. Modern nations’ discriminatory or colonialist legacies can result in a cultural imperialism. With unequal power between nations, civilizations, and societies, cultures can become structures of inequality in and of themselves. Stuart Hall claimed that, despite often being seen as monoliths, cultures are “cross-cut by deep internal divisions and differences, and ‘unified’ only through the exercise of different forms of cultural power”. (617) Inequalities that exist within a society are built into the DNA of said society’s culture. As different people within a society have different experiences within it, it’s important to take cultural products within this context. Due to its social nature, culture is vulnerable, but also attractive as it results in unique aesthetics from which products can be made. It’s “use-value” is high — it allows for diversity in consumerist products, and provides people with a sense of belonging to a larger group. However, these products also have an “exchange-value”, constructed by the market. There are entire industries based off of owning the products of identity and community.

3.2 The Cultural Industries Ownership over culture matters because ownership, as previously discussed, is how value is derived from the products that emerge from that culture. Culture’s practice and display results in goods which are used as vessels to identity, which can communicate a huge amount of information about a people. When a culture can derive profits from their own cultural products, it’s all well and good, but often this is not the case. In the book The Cultural Industries, Ruth Towse defines cultural industries as those that “mass-produce goods and services with sufficient artistic content to be considered creative and culturally significant.” (170) They produce cultural content on an industrial scale and rely on the labor of cultural workers, such as artists. The concept

of the “cultural industries” takes its roots from Adorno and Horkheimer, who, in their seminal work "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", described popular culture as one of mass production, and the complicity of the consuming public in participating. (1242) To Adorno and Horkheimer, “modern” technology brought on an industry where cultural products all look the same: “Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable.” (1244) Such standardized mass-production was a defining feature of Fordism, a system that existed in developed economies in the mid-20th century. (Thompson)

th As the economy evolved in the later half of the 20 century due to increased globalization, so to did cultural production. (Baca 169) This time, referred to as Post-Fordism, marked a shift in production from mass production to specialized, small-batch production, characterized by “a well-developed ability both to shift promptly from one process and/or product configuration to another (dynamic flexibility) and to adjust quantities of output rapidly up or down over the short run without any strongly deleterious effects on levels of efficiency.” (Kiely 98) This new era of production emphasized cultural products as “luxury consumer goods”. (Jessop) This movement from Fordism to post-Fordism marked a fundamental shift in the way the public consumed cultural goods. This illustrates how attitudes towards cultural value and ownership have been externally linked to outside forces, such as economy or emerging technologies. The introduction of the internet would again completely change how culture was produced and consumed.

3.3 Intellectual property

The cultural industries, like other industries, function off of a system of privatization. This ownership is exerted using intellectual property, which is a set of legal protections assigning ownership over ideas and cultural products to the intellectual property holder.

It is through these legal protections that artists and creative and cultural workers seek remuneration for their products. The tool used to apply intellectual property rights is copyright. Copyright essentially converts cultural products “such as art, dance, music and literature into commodities”. (Greene 354) As K.J. Greene lays out in his paper, “Copyright, Culture & Black Music: A Legacy of Unequal Protection”, the rights intellectual property law protects in the United States were first laid out in the 1909 Act, and then expanded in the 1976 Act. The 1909 Act provides the following protections: “the right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell copyrighted works; to translate, convert, arrange or adapt copyrighted works; and to distribute and publicly perform copyrighted works.” (346) The 1976 Act added the following: “the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance and display.” (348-349) The law also protects against financial “appropriation of an author’s creative works”. (349) This act of another using the work for commercial gains constitutes “infringement”. (349) Artists and authors can collect payment for their intellectual property via royalties, which essentially means they lease out their works, or can sue to recover damages from others using their works. Copyright protects cultural products by allocating ownership to a single copyright holder, preventing others from deriving value from its economic properties. In order to not violate the First Amendment’s promise of the right to free expression, copyright does not protect “ideas, principles, genres or facts from public use.” (Greene 349) This allows “the artist, the thinker and the social commentator the right to speak freely without intellectual restraint of any kind” (350), but also creates a grey area when it comes to what constitutes an “idea” vs. a “work”. This sums up the paradoxical aspect of copyright and creative or cultural works: How can one restrict the use of ideas without stifling freedom of expression and creativity? How can cultural identities be protected? This “idea-expression dichotomy” is criticized for being “the most notorious problem in copyright law”. (Greene 351) As Judge Learned Hand once said, “obviously no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the ‘idea’,

and has borrowed its ‘expression’. Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc.” (351) Of course, opening up copyright to a case by case basis is putting immense power in the hands of the legal system, which comes along with its own set of biases. Therefore, copyright decisions are often not cut and dry, and decisions over copyright violations can be subjective, even discriminatory. This has been prevalent throughout the history of the music industry, where certain groups were denied copyright. Despite the limitations that copyright poses, privatization is thought to incentivize creativity in fields such as the arts and technology, and is even written into the American Constitution. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. (Intellectual Property Clause) The Supreme Court, which enables Congress to enact patent and copyright law to encourage innovation, maintains “[t]he immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return of for an author’s creative labor… the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good”. (Greene 346) Many creative and cultural workers make a living via contract, a legal agreement transferring the rights to the economic properties a workers product.

3.4 Property vs. Culture

The true issue of owning culture is the inevitable conflict of private vs. public. While intellectual property in theory promises to work on behalf of the cultural worker, it is ultimately a tool of the market. The U.S. Constitution romantically claims that copyright is meant to promote creativity and innovation, but Greene argues instead that “the focus on the American copyright system has been on economic protection, rather than protection of personal rights of artists.” (347) American copyright law is inextricably grounded in economic incentive theory: (The) principal object of intellectual property law in the United States is to ensure consumers a wide variety of information products at the lowest possible price… through the grant of private property rights enabling individuals and businesses to appropriate to themselves the value of the information they produce, giving them incentive to produce still more. (348)

This is a given, as private property itself is a capitalist function, but copyright comes directly into conflict with culture’s fundamentally public traits. Stuart Hall defined cultural identity as “those aspects of our identities which arise from our ‘belonging’ to distinctive ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, and, above all, national cultures”. (596) The objects that are produced from these cultures are therefore imbued with identity, and inherently bound up in ethnic, religious, or national dynamics. Products carry this with them as they enter the market. Culture is co-produced by members of the public, but when the product of these social processes is privatized, it is cut off from the public that co-created it. This often doesn’t work. The ubiquitous song “Happy Birthday to You” provides an example of the problems that copyright poses in regards to cultural products. As Heather McIntosh looks at in her paper “Who Owns Culture?”, this song has become a tradition of celebrating birthdays in the U.S.. Based on Patty and Mildred Hill’s children’s song “Good Morning to All”, the highly recognizable tune has been translated in multiple languages. (529) In 1988, Warner Music Group copyrighted the song, and attempted to seek fees from groups such as the Girl Scouts who sang it at meeting. (529) Despite public backlash, Warner Music Group still earns more than $2 million annually from its use in TV and film. (529) “In essence, corporate copyright holders seek their revenues no matter what the content’s uses, its users’ identities, or those users’ motivations.” (529) “Happy Birthday to You” provides an example of how copyright is difficult to apply to, and ideologically comes into conflict with, culture. Warner Music Group may make money off of the song’s use in media, but this doesn’t stop it from being sung at nearly every birthday in the United States. The problem of intellectual property also raises a fundamental question: who can claim copyright, and who cannot?

3.5 Copyright is not neutral, and never has been

Intellectual property is a form of control. To repeat Greene, it is a tool of the market. It has been used for centuries to funnel money to certain groups of people, and away from others. Greene’s paper explores how African American music artists were historically deprived of legal protection over their art, and how copyright actively works to exacerbate this inequality. He says that copyright’s original purpose was to essentially “provide neutral economic incentives to creators and protects economic interests in original works” (341). But, he argues, copyright is not neutral, and never has been. From a Marxist perspective, intellectual property and copyright are exploitative concepts inherently. This exploitation is deepened by years of explicit and institutional discrimination based on race, gender, or class. As shown in the case of contracted labor, the group that produces cultural products is not necessarily the one who derives profit from them. Greene looks specifically at the case of the music industry. While the music industry generally exploits all artists through contracts, Greene says it is “undeniable that African-American artists have borne an even greater level of exploitation and appropriation.” (341) This was, in part, because of “the interaction of the copyright regime and the contract regime”. (354) The 1909 Act did not enforce copyright protection at all “until the work was either published with proper notice or registered. Thus, under the 1909 Act, the initial copyright registration for a work could list a claimant other than the author as the copyright owner…” (353) Therefore, individuals who did not produce the cultural good could lay claim to its properties. Due to African Americans being unable to accumulate wealth because of a recent history of slavery and discrimination, this resulted in many of their artworks being claimed by other parties who had the access to get there first. Additionally, the 1909 Act’s language and requirements were purposefully convolutedly phrased, so “artists

unfamiliar with legal requirements could easily find their works injected into the public domain, which resulted in the loss of their economic rights to copyright protection.” (Greene 354) The 1976 Act eliminated this, but by that point there was already a large body of work that had not been protected, a result, Greene argues, of intellectual property fostering inequality in that it is “inaccessible to the unschooled” and “worthless where the creator failed to comply with legal requirements.” (355) Not only is intellectual property exploitative in that it is privatization, but it was also created in systems of discrimination. Copyright, as Greene claims, “is owner-centered, not creator-centered”, which leaves large parts of society vulnerable to theft. (356) Social groups with less bargaining power or who are the target of discrimination are automatically put at a severe disadvantage. (356) Copyright has helped to keep systems of discrimination in place by denying economic opportunity to certain groups. Even without operating within discriminatory institutions and in the historical context of racial discrimination, the very way copyright functions prevents it from being neutral. McIntosh echoes these ideas put forth by Greene by claiming that copyright heavily favors Western cultural products, such as music. Copyright “emphasizes authorship, such as through lyrics and through composition, and it emphasizes artists over the personnel involved in production”. (530) It also favors cultural products on a physical record, such as sheet music or tape, etc, putting cultural groups whose art relies heavily on oral tradition at a further disadvantage. Therefore the individual artist is favored, “negating external cultural, personal, or even industrial influences.” (530) This puts many non-Western artists at a disadvantage, especially in areas of the world where group music performances or oral traditions are dominant. When it comes to legal ownership, issues of access and opportunity are important as they reveal the discriminatory ways in which capitalist forces work within the cultural industries. Cultural ownership has its own set of codes of conduct and violations located well outside of the range of law, which can perhaps best be demonstrated by examining the concept of cultural appropriation.

3.6 Cultural Appropriation “In our culture, people own stories. Individuals own stories. Tribes own stories. Nations own stories. And there is a protocol if you want to tell those stories: you go to the storyteller. And if you don’t and you start telling those stories, then you are stealing.” - Maria Campbell, CBC Radio’s Morningside (Morningside)

Now overused as a buzzword, cultural appropriation’s meaning has largely been lost in contradictory think pieces and incendiary comment sections, and diluted into an overused “politically correct” accusatory liberal term. It is the phrase that has launched a thousand digital witch hunts, yet to identify it is slippery. In its essence, cultural appropriation refers to a dominant group of people taking elements from, and profiting off of, the culture of another. It is the idea of intellectual property for areas where intellectual property doesn’t cover. Of course, cultures borrowing from and influencing one another has always existed. World history consists of groups of people moving around the globe, interacting with one another, battling each other, and combining. Often cultures are already formed from amalgamations of other cultures. In cultural products this can be seen in new styles, genres, and aesthetics being created. But what is the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, and what is it about the latter that makes it distinctly negative? The answer is not so clear. In the book Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation, Bruce Ziff and Pratima Rao define cultural appropriation as “the taking – from a culture that is not one’s own – of intellectual property, cultural expression or artifacts, history and ways of knowledge”. (Ziff and Rao 1) But this definition does not differentiate appropriation satisfactorily from cultural exchange. As said before, cultures carry their own history of conflict, subjugation, and exploitation. What is most at stake in cultural appropriation, and why it is so contentious, is that it acknowledges culture exists within a landscape of power dynamics.

Cultural appropriation acknowledges that society as it exists today largely regards whiteness as dominant. The long history of white culture subsuming the accomplishments and innovations of minority cultures is a concept that has been well-documented in academia. One such scholar is Sara Ahmed, who, in her paper “Phenomenology of Whiteness”, explores how whiteness is seen as a default, and racialization only happens when nonwhite bodies interrupt the norm: “...bodies are shaped by by histories of colonialism, which makes the world ‘white’, a world that is inherited, or which is already given before the point of an individual’s arrival. This is the familiar world, the world of whiteness, as a world we know implicitly.” (153) The effects of colonialism have left the world in a state where nonwhite is a novelty, turning it into an object of curiosity. These ideas have entered into contemporary dialogue of culture. In the 2017 New York Times article “The Identity Politics of Whiteness”, Laila Lalami explains: “‘Identity’... is almost never applied to whitenesss. Racial identity is taken to be exclusive to people of color… ‘White’ is seen as the default, the absence of race.” (Lalami) This propagates a kind of orientalism when it comes to any culture that isn’t white: “...people will tell you they are fans of black or Latino music, but few will claim they love white music.” (Lalami) Thus, whiteness acts as a default against which all other cultural identities are juxtaposed. An article in The New Inquiry called “Can the White Girl Twerk?” echoes this, defining the most troubling aspect of appropriation as “The presumed generic whiteness of the mainstream U.S. audience means that white consumers decide not only what blackness is, but also what they want out of it”. (Siddiqi) Cultural appropriation reinforces one culture as the default, and everything else as the “other”, and a fun grab bag from which aesthetic and style can be taken from at whim. This creates a situation where whiteness is allowed a depth and complexity that other cultures aren’t. This is a result of cultural colonization, which, in his seminal paper “Cultural Colonialism”, Frederico Ferro Gay describes as “a true death” and “the worst type of subjection”: This bondage consists in the imitation of foreign languages, customs, and feelings, that is, in the absolute loss of the national idiosyncrasy. In effect,

the national peculiarity of a people is its essence, its soul and its life. To the extent that it keeps it, whatever its civil distress may be, it can recuperate, but when it has lost even its own being and the consciousness itself, there is no longer any hope. (153) Cultural colonialism results in a member of society being “indoctrinated to feel inferior by his racist conqueror.” (153) This can be seen when white culture subsumes the cultural products of another, turning them into properties of white culture after which they are elevated. In the same way that access, or lack of access, to copyright keeps systems of oppression and discrimination in place, the fear with cultural appropriation is that in areas intellectual property law cannot touch – such as ideas – marginalized communities will continue to be unable to profit from their own cultural products. When cultural products become instantly more valuable upon their subsumption into white mainstream culture, the culture that originally created it loses out, propagating a system where the most powerful groups continue to make money off of the most vulnerable. In this way, acts of cultural appropriation are akin to theft, in the same way that Proudhon decried. It is useful to apply Marxist theories of labor, in particular worker alienation, to cultural appropriation. As previously discussed, a central aspect of class tension in capitalist systems is the alienation between the worker and its products. (Marx “Economic and Philosophic” 5) When an industry takes on production of a cultural product that is not their own, that cultural group is made to feel a sense of alienation to their culture’s products. The fruits of their labor – which could be thought of as years of interaction, building aesthetic and group value, rather than labor in a factory – are not in their own control. Access to power matters in the same way that access to copyright opportunity matters – it determines who can profit off of a cultural object. “If we were all equal and that culture's members were not mocked, ostracized and objectified for wearing the same things, then it would be okay. But, unfortunately, that’s not the case.” (Berumen)

When subordinated groups wish to exert ownership over the economic properties of their cultural goods, cultural appropriation poses a very serious roadblock.

3.7: Where does music fit into all of this?

Music is an interesting subject to apply ideas of ownership and value to because of its formal properties, and inextricable relationship to culture and identity. Music itself is not a physical object, and can be performed anywhere by anyone. When it is not deliberately recorded, it is ephemeral. Music is often communally produced and shaped, and very often relies on being passed down through oral tradition, making it an integral part of a culture’s identity. R. Murray Schafer explored these ideas in his seminal work “The Soundscape”: “There can be little doubt then that music is an indicator of age, revealing, for those who know how to read its symptomatic messages, a means of fixing social and even political events.” (98) Music is an excellent indicator of cultural identity. These are specific properties of music that make it especially difficult to own, and which the internet catalyzed by dissolving geographic boundaries, challenging pre-existing methods for exerting legal ownership, and shifting the power structure of the industry and the relationship between artists and their music irreparably.

Chapter 4: Enter: the internet

Since its invention in 1991 and the dot com bubble in the mid-90s, the World Wide Web has been doing exactly what it’s name promises: connecting people from all over the world in an intricate web, allowing them to share information, goods, and money at a rate faster than ever before. (Bryant) Huge tracts of fibre-optic cables were laid out, literally connecting the globe, bringing new potential for cultures to interact, share knowledge, influence one another, and create new cultural and aesthetic practice. In his paper “Music in the Age of Free Distribution: MP3 and Society”, Kostas Kasaras referred to it as “a modern sophisticated system that transcends national borders and accelerates cultural and economical globalization.” (Kasaras) The world suddenly became a much smaller place. This, Kasaras claims, is what sets the internet apart from previous tech “revolutions”: “the Internet’s fundamental provision of interactivity” allows for a whole new realm of free expression. (Kasaras) Following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001, the internet further transformed from connecting computers to connecting internet users together through an “architecture of participation” encouraging rich user experiences via platforms and continually-updating services. (O’Reilly) This new “Web 2.0” allowed for users to generate content via platforms such as social media sites, media sharing sites, web applications, and more. Users had more ability than ever to collaborate online and interact in a dynamic digital space. However, with this free movement of information came a brand new model of capitalism, wrought with potential for new ways of exploitation. A new digital economy emerged, which became “an increasingly pervasive infrastructure for the contemporary economy” and businesses flourished that “increasingly rely upon information technology, data, and the internet for their business models.” (Srnicek 4) Data, or “the oil of the digital era”, took over as the dominant commodity. Traditional ideas of labor, worker-capitalist relations, and exploitation took on a new appearance. (The Economist “The World’s Most Valuable Resource”) Cultural industries, such as the music industry,

came under the control of hegemonic tech companies that dealt in data rather than products. This “capitalist restructuring” is what many theorists refer to as informational capitalism. (Castells)

4.1 Informational Capitalism

First and foremost, it’s important to establish that the internet, like all technological innovation, does not operate outside of capitalist interests. As Christian Fuchs explored in the paper “Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet”: “Technology is shaped by and shapes society in complex ways”, and these forces shaping society are “medium and outcome of capitalist interests, strategies, and restructuring.” (180) Despite cyber-utopian ideas of the internet bringing about emancipatory change to exploitative capitalist systems – this, in fact, was the ideal that the internet was built upon by nonprofit researchers in 1990 – all it truly did was shift the dynamics around. (Kot 25) Capitalism has always been about reducing production costs of goods as low as possible in relation to the market price of the good, and the internet emerged as a new way to do this. In his book “Platform Capitalism”, Nick Srnicek looks at how the new digital economy emerged in the context of global economic activity: “Capitalism, when a crisis hits, tends to be restructured. New technologies, new organisational forms, new modes of exploitation, new types of jobs, and new markets all emerge to create a new way of accumulating capital.” (36) According to Srnicek, the new digital economy emerged with the dot com bubble forming and its subsequent burst in 2001 followed by the 2008 financial crisis, resulting in “the adoption of efficient technologies and techniques in the labour process, specialisation, and the sabotage of competitors.” (11) The structure of the global economy and the way it operated was forever changed. And thus came a shift in how capitalism operated. Informational capitalism, as defined by Srnicek, is when “collective cooperation and knowledge become a source of value.” (38) In this new mode of capitalism, labor itself becomes “increasingly

immaterial, oriented towards the use and manipulation of symbols and affects”, and “the product of work becomes immaterial: cultural content, knowledge, affects, and services.” (38) The way we work has begun to revolve around the production of the theoretical and symbolic, rather than the physical. Knowledge has become a valuable resource that feeds the engine of the internet, cyclically making it more valuable. So many users interacting and creating content online produced a huge amount of data. This data is constantly extracted by massive tech companies to attract advertising revenue, giving them more revenue to purchase larger tracts of the internet. This required a new kind of business model, a mediary, that could handle such vast amounts of data: the platform, or the “digital infrastructures that enable two or more groups to interact”. (Srnicek 42) These new platforms became the new hegemonic forces in the digital economy, replacing traditional industry conglomerates as the dominant forces. Platforms rely on the production of “network effects”, which means the more people who use it, the more valuable the platform becomes for the rest of the users. (45) Platforms competed against each other to attract new users, who supplied more data. From transportation to purchasing books to listening to music, steadily platforms became the new way in which consumers interacted with industries. Platforms themselves became new mediatory spaces for exploitative labor practice. The new capitalist no longer exerts power over owning the means of production, but “rather has ownership over information” (Srnicek 38). Under this new capitalism, class and exploitative labor practice transformed.

4.2 The new class system and knowledge worker

As Srnicek points out, capitalism requires “constant technological change”. (11) Therefore labor itself constantly changes as a result. Despite the changes informational capitalism brought to the type of labor the new digital economy revolved around, it is still viable, and important, to look at digital labor through the lens of Marxist ideas of class exploitation.

Who exactly is this new worker? Knowledge labor is defined as “labor that produces and distributes information, communication, social relationships, affects, and information and communication technologies”. (Fuchs 186) Under informational capitalism, knowledge workers produce knowledge goods, along with people using social media, media consumers, and other platforms and applications. The informational content they produce is then “appropriated by capital”. (187) Basically, people that do stuff online are making money for the platforms and hegemonic forces that extract their data. This knowledge worker does not exactly fit into traditional Marxist notions of labor. Due to a movement towards outsourced labor under informational capitalism, “which means not having to take care of labor rights, ancillary wage costs, technology, etc.”, precarious employment — or labor that is insecure, unprotected, or unpaid — grew. (Fuchs 186) According to Fuchs: “Formally they are self-employed and own and control their means of production (brain, computer, etc.), but they are forced to permanently sell their own labor power per contracts to capitalist corporations that outsource of subcontract labor power.” (185) Traditional forms of labor saw the capitalist as the one owning the means of production, were often responsible for costs including both the that of the means of production as well as a certain amount of protection for the employee. But this new form of labor sees these workers without protection, while still contributing to the capitalist’s profit. This affects workers at all class levels. In their paper “In the Social Factory? Immaterial Labour, Precariousness and Cultural Work”, Rosalind Gill and Andy Pratt echo Fuchs: Transformations in advanced capitalism… have produced an apparently novel situation in which increasing numbers of workers in affluent societies are engaged in insecure, casualized or irregular labour. While capitalist labour has always been characterized by intermittency for lower-paid and lower skilled workers, the recent departure is the addition of well-paid and high-status workers into this group of 'precarious workers'. (2) This growing class of precarious workers is representative of the more sinister aspects of the new kind of exploitation that informational capitalism brings.

What’s more is that laborers now include all internet users. Web 2.0 created a dynamic web space for users to interact and create content on platforms, making those platforms more valuable for their owners. Fuchs argues that informational capitalism calls for an expansion in how we think of Marx ideas of class and labor to something that “include(s) everybody who creates and recreates spaces of common experience, such as user-generated content on the Internet, through their practices. These spaces and experiences are appropriated and thereby expropriated and exploited by capital to accumulate capital.” (179) Digital content is of value, and therefore anyone creating content online is a worker, generating this value. In an attempt to address this new class of digital laborers, Tiziana Terranova argued in her paper “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy” that in late capitalist societies, internet users are laborers working for free and being exploited by capital. She compares digital labor to “the modern sweatshop”, and claims the digital cultural economy is largely made up of these free laborers. (33) The Internet “is animated by… a continuous production of value”, and these laborers are producing this value for free not only “because capital wants them to; they are acting out a desire for affective and cultural production that is nonetheless real just because it is socially shaped.” (34) Generating content on the internet is now a part of socializing at large, which encourages users to spend more time on platforms creating. Terranova references examples from other sources who have made claims the internet encourages exploitation of unpaid labor. In a 1999 article in WIRED concerning the unpaid community leaders of AOL, Lisa Margonelli described their free work as a “cyber-sweatshop”. (Margonelli) Nicholas Carr has described Web 2.0 as a way of putting “the means of production into the hands of the masses but withholding from those same masses any ownership over the product of their work.” (Carr) To Carr, the new Internet is “an incredibly efficient mechanism to harvest the economic value of the free labor provided by the very many and concentrate it into the hands of the very few” – he even goes as far as to call it “digital sharecropping”. (Carr) An article from The New

Inquiry described digital labor as “transform(ing) our habitus… into an explicit productive force without our conscious consent.” (Horning) However, implications of slavery-like systems such as sweatshops lose sight of the idea that, while the work is unpaid, it is also pleasurable. Increased social capital, knowledge, and enjoyment are just a few things that internet users gain. The internet lowered the barrier of entry for creative work, allowing anyone with an internet connection to create content. While this new concept of labor is exploitative in a Marxist sense, it is also a realm where workers themselves extract value, even if it is not in the form of a wage. This capitalist restructuring has affected all industries, but as cultural content is one of the main outputs of immaterial goods under informational capitalism, this had an especially profound effect on the cultural industries.

4.3 Digital Culture

Similarly to how shifts in economy and increased globalization led to the development of Fordism and Post-Fordism led to a new mode of cultural consumption, so to did the world’s reaction to the exciting new possibilities of the internet create a new infrastructure. In the his 2010 paper, Fuchs described the transformation of informational capitalism: …the novel aspects are that organizations and social networks are increasingly globally distributed, that actors and substructures are located globally and change dynamically (new nodes can be continuously added and removed), and that the flows of capital, power, money, commodities, people, and information are processed globally at high speed. (180) This dynamic new system accounts for the internet’s global reach, lightning speed, and constantly reorganizing nature. The role of globalization in regards to an emergence of the new digital cultural industries cannot be stressed enough. The world opened up, and took on a new form. Geographic distances and borders suddenly disappeared. The globe became “a space of flows, an electronic space, a decentered space, a space in which frontiers and boundaries have become

permeable”. (Morley and Robins 115) This resulted in “a new electronic cultural space, a ‘placeless’ geography of image and simulation… this new global arena of culture is a world of instantaneous and depthless communication, a world in which space and time horizons have become compressed and collapsed…” (115) Culture and cultural identity itself felt the effects of rapid globalization. Globalization, defined by the Global Policy Forum as the process which “expands and accelerates the exchange of ideas and commodities over vast distances” has always existed, but the internet made it all the more prevalent. (Global Policy Forum) Suddenly, through a “compression of time and space horizons and the creation of a world of instantaneity and depthlessness”, (Morley and Robins 115) cultures were coming into contact at lightning speed, interacting with and influencing each other on a larger scale than ever before. Culture adapted to the web. As Justin O’Connor said in “Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries”, under the post-Fordist economy, “culture was being primarily used in an anthropological sense of a generalized system of meanings and practices (or way of life)”, but, after the emergence of the internet, culture became “heavily mediated by informational flows.” (383) Culture became condensed, and packaged for quick online transfer. In order to keep up with the demand for the sheer volume of cultural content being shared under informational capitalism, “creativity, it was argued, would be the new transformative force for economies, and liberating for individuals at the same time.” (384) Under informational capitalism, the position of cultural workers changed perhaps more than any other, and came to “symbolize contemporary transformations of work.” (Gill and Pratt 26) Being creative and creating cultural content was viewed as bettering oneself, encouraging cultural workers to enter into a growing number of precarious labor positions: “...the aspirations to autonomy of ‘cultural workers’, result(s) in a ‘precarity’ that was largely self-chosen.” (O’Connor 383) Internet users grew rapidly, dynamically interacting online, allowing for “the capacity of creativity (to) be generated without necessarily using cultural workers; creativity for economic innovation and competitiveness was increasingly generic.“ (385) They worked for free to create the

content that makes the platforms and sites of Web 2.0 valuable, further eliminating the need for paid cultural work online.

Chapter 5: Music

Cultural products are a way to gain insight into the conditions, values, and history of a culture, and music is no different. Its intrinsic properties and place within culture and identity make music an interesting, albeit complicated, lens through with to examine ownership. Music, in and of itself, is not a physical object. It can be anything from a whistle to orchestral rhythms. As long as it is deliberately ordered sound, it is music – but even this is up for debate. Identifiable groups can convey their culture through it. As Steven Naylor wrote in “Appropriation, Culture and Meaning in Electroacoustic Music: A composer’s perspective”: “The most conspicuous examples of sonic cultural expressions are human speech and musical performance.” (110) It travels easily, making it a common representative for cultural identity. Music’s container is often as important as the music inside it, and the shifting shape of its container following changes in technology tells a lot about how we think of, and deal with, music. As Stephen Davies noted in “Versions of Musical Works and Literary Translations”, “where a medium-specific piece is adapted to a new medium, as when a nineteenth-century symphony is rewritten for the piano, the result is a distinct work…” (87) This can be seen throughout the history of music, which tells the story of humans’ desire for music to become more and more portable. From sheet music and the phonograph, to the LP, cassette, CD, and then the mp3, music has steadily become smaller, faster, and less traceable. But why is it important that music is portable? Firstly, because music is a method of communication. Whether this is in protest, cultural display, or spiritual practice, music is inherently social and community based. Secondly, because portability makes music more profitable. The more people who purchase a vinyl LP, CD, mp3, or hear a song streamed, the more money there is to be made either from that sale or tangential sales.

5.1 Music as cultural object Often a pattern of style of music emerges when people are in one space, constantly interacting, creating music, sharing music, performing together, and, as a result, influencing one another. The unique musical traditions and instruments that develop in various locations, climates, and geographies result in distinct aesthetic styles, called a genre. Genres have traditionally been born from close geographic proximity, and become a part of a culture’s identity. In the same way culture is socially produced, so is music. These ideas are most notably explored by Schafer, as referenced above, who introduced the concept of “sound marks”: “The term sound mark is derived from landmark and refers to a community sound which is unique or possesses qualities which make it specially regarded or noticed by the people in that community.” (101) Different groups of people with distinct and identifiable cultural identities produce defined sounds. This, Schafer claims, comes from “The keynote sounds of a landscape are those created by its geography and climate: water, wind, forests, plains, birds, insects and animals.” (101) Keynote sounds are important because “they help to outline the character of men living among them.” (101) As they come to define a culture, these keynote sounds take on meaning. While keynote sounds in nature may have originated the distinct sounds of culture, years and years of socialization between groups have developed these sounds into actual music styles — genres. So what happens when different groups with distinct cultural and musical identities interact? In the same way hybrid cultures form, so do hybrid genres, by splitting and and combining aesthetics and techniques. There are countless examples, such as Jungle music. Formed in the early 90s UK, Jungle takes its aesthetic elements from classic Jamaican DJ practice originating in Kingston (”There’s a place in Kingston called Tivoli Gardens, and the people call it the Jungle”). (Reynolds 245) British rave artists incorporated reggae bass and dancehall style with their loops, samples, and synthesizers to create a whole new genre. (Gordon) Yet another example is Afrobeat,

the genre created in the 60s by Nigerian artist Fela Kuti. Formed from funk, jazz, Nigerian highlife, and Jamaican culture and rhythms. (Matos) These new genres often pop up in spaces that allow cultures to constantly interact and share, such as diverse metropolitan areas. These dynamic aspects of music are exactly why ownership and value come into conflict. How can one exert ownership over something that is as ephemeral as a song can be? Or as amorphous as genre so often is? While it’s important to understand that music is a complex cultural object, it’s also a commodified product. There are, as discussed previously in regards to culture, different modes of ownership with music. There is legal ownership, which is exerted through copyright, but also cultural ownership, which is largely unprotected. The two often conflict. When music is claimed to be a part of a group or individual’s identity but is put up for sale by another, this results in exploitation.

5.2 The Music industry, Pre-Internet

5.2.1 A short history of the music industry

The music industry has attempted to consolidate its power into a hegemonic alignment of major players. Its structure seeks to keep music ownership in the hands of as few as possible, while innovations in music containers have pushed to get it into the homes of as many people as possible as quickly as possible and as far afield as possible. The first consolidation of publishing firms on Tin Pan Alley along Manhattan’s 28th Street coincided with the first wave of home music-playing technology, solidified by the invention of the phonograph, which for the first time “became something that one purchased as sound.” (Taylor 3) The industry therefore has long relied on a concentration of ownership and efficient distribution. The popularity of the household radio in the 1920’s became a powerful distributor for music, which distribution companies paid to air their songs. (Taylor 3) Around the

same time, patent restrictions discluding marginalized artists ended, resulting in the appearance of small firms that catered to then-niche audiences. (Maultsby 92) African American music and southern vernacular artists in particular saw a rise in representation in firms, introducing blues, jazz, country and folk to the airwaves. (92) It was in this period that the music industry became more diverse, and small niche firms brought new genres of music to the public. As record sales were decimated following the Great Depression, small music production and distribution businesses that had risen up in the early 20th century failed. (Maultsby 94) Only major corporations survived, along with their often discriminatory policies, threatening the marginalized artists that had finally received representation. Infighting between the major labels brought on another wave of decentralization. In a notable case, ASCAP, which then held the monopoly over royalty collections for published music, demanded compensations from the radio for broadcasting their titles. (95) Rival BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.) offered radio stations their music instead, which was largely made up of African American artists and composers, working-class genres, and lesser-known artists. (95) Marginalized artists’ new access to broadcasting led to another wave of diverse representation: “The shift opened the door for African American styles to be the guiding force behind the industry's postwar expansion.” (95) What this swinging from decentralized to centralized illustrates is that the industry’s structure had huge effects on whose music was “owned” by the major conglomerates, and therefore represented in the public. The shifts in power — catalyzed by the advent of new technologies such as the phonograph, radio, and later cassette tape, CD, and mp3 — therefore correlate with shifts in access and representation. Those who the music industry produced, were therefore valued.

5.2.2 The music industry structure pre-internet The US recorded music industry’s structure has long existed as a constellation of laborers, responsible for each part of the music making process. These laborers are controlled by a small group of music labels, corporations that own the rights to the

music being created. There have long been shifts of balance between major labels and independent labels, and the industry has notoriously had an inherently unstable and unpredictable nature due to “a consistently massive over-supply of output relative to consumer demands. As a consequence, there is rapid turnover among smaller independents, especially as barriers to entry and exit are low.” (Scott 1966) Due to this “over-supply of output,” a saturated market made it difficult for smaller independent labels to survive, and thrive. Major labels have therefore largely kept control over what music is produced for the past century. The role of the record label is to essentially manage and bankroll the music production and distribution process, and control the copyright. The larger, or “major”, labels were a small group of large corporate entities that controlled the vast majority of the recorded music industry. (1966) Horizontal expansion allowed them ownership over almost every step of the music-making process. They acted as umbrellas over networks of independent labels, and other music production, distribution, and promotion companies, allowing them to hold a more stable position within the volatile industry. In the 1990s, five major labels reigned supreme, and owned the vast majority of music being produced: Bertelsmann AG, the EMI Group, the Seagram Company Ltd, Sony Corporation, and Time-Warner Inc. (1966) Each label had multiple branches, allowing them to unify the music-making process. For example, Time-Warner’s primary record label was Warner Music Group, but Time-Warner also owned several affiliate independent labels; WEA Inc., which owned record manufacturing and distribution facilities, and Ivy Hill, a packaging and sleeve printing company. (1966) By unifying music production through owning the means of its production, this allowed them to extract greater profit. Music industry players extend beyond labels, and relies upon complex webs of relationships between songwriters, engineers, producers, managers, musicians, and more, each involved in the creation of a piece of music. This web of laborers was crucial for the industry to run, while the label remained “the central unit of ownership and control.” (1968)

5.2.3 The role of the artist It’s not hard to see how the recording industry works off of a system of exploitation. The exclusivity of the contract and the enforcement of copyright regimes is what makes the music industry an industry, and not a mere place of cultural exchange. Despite typically being the “face” of the music (for example, Big Sean’s album “Dark Sky Paradise” and Carrie Underwood’s song “Jesus Take the Wheel” are not actually theirs, even though we speak of it in that way, but properties of their label), artists are most often under the control of labels via contracts1, a legal agreement determining the labor-capitalist relationship. The label controls the artist as follows. After an artist signs to a label via a recording contract, the record label then typically owns the copyright, or “master recordings”, over the artist's output: “Under most exclusive recording contracts, the artist will assign copyright in the sound recordings to the record company. An assignment is a transfer of ownership for the full life of copyright. In the case of sound recordings this will be 50 years from release.” (Salmon) It’s unlikely that an artist is ever able to retain the rights to their works: “Firstly, even unreleased recordings remain the property of the label for the artist's entire career. And secondly, even once the artist has repaid all recording costs, the label will still own the masters.” (Salmon) The label is often responsible for most of the production costs of the music, as well as the distribution and promotion of the record. In return, they then own the product. Most contracts are also international, so the label has the rights to the music all over the world. (Luti) After the music is made, distributed, and promoted, the artist receives a portion of the money made from the sale of their music as stipulated by the contract, known as royalties. (Brain) Nearly all recording contracts have an “exclusivity agreement” as a built in component. This means that the label effectively owns all of the artist’s work for a fixed term, and that artist cannot record music with anyone else. (Luti) It is in a record label’s best interest to keep artists on the hook for as long as possible, so that in case

1 Recording contracts vary greatly in the structure of the agreement. For the sake of illustrating how it acts as a tool of control, the description of recording contracts has been generalized. 39

the artist does well, they have a stake in future sales. A label can “drop” a recording artist from their contract if the music does not perform well. Labels maintain power over the artists by keeping them in this precarious position. The royalty rates are subject to negotiation between the artist or artist’s management and the record label. Traditionally, in the years of the CD’s reign, an artist would receive between 10-20% as their royalty rate from a major label recording contract. (Brain) Despite an agreed upon royalty rate, the label can deduct further costs from the artists pay, such as promotion, free CDs, or studio rental: “In reality, most 'deductions' are artificial and in no way reflect the true cost to the label.” (Salmon) Various factors determine how much an artist would get from their music, such as aforementioned negotiated royalty rates, but also external factors such as the price of a CD (or whatever unit of sale) set by the market, wholesale prices, and other expenses that could at any point be taken by the record label. (Brain) An artist will often receive an advance, or an upfront lump sum payment, in addition to the money made from the royalty rate. However, this advance typically is deducted later on. (Brain, Luti) Many times the record label will hold onto the cash made from sales until they are paid back, as record label advances are “cross-collateralized”: “Before they'll see any money, the artist will have to recoup the recording costs, advances, and usually 50 percent of all video costs. The label will make additional deductions, reducing the real royalty rate still further.” (McDonald “How Does a Record Label Decide”) These strict contract systems keep artists tightly in control and at the mercy of the music label.

5.2.4 Marx and Music

In the traditional music industry structure where few dominant major labels owned means of production, it was incredibly difficult for artists to make a living without a recording contract. Artists can remain independent from labels, but due to the high cost of music production, and over-supply of music relative to demand, this was uncommon.

Music’s use-value is high because of its ties to culture, identity, and community, making it desirable. After it is produced, music is bundled and bought and sold via various formats, by a price, or exchange-value, determined by the relativity of the market. This exchange-value is also a source of exploitation: “Exploitation is achieved through physical sales, such as CD, vinyl and cassette; the public performance and broadcasting of works; and the sale of digital products such as downloads and mobile ringtones.” (Salmon) Turning music into discrete objects ready for sale is commodification, and therefore stealth from the public. It is no longer able to be used by anyone. From a Marx perspective, the recording contract is another source of expropriating from the commons. It is how labels commandeer music’s economic properties. To again quote Brenkert, “Modern (capitalist) private property is the power possessed by private individuals in the means of production which allows them to dispose as they will of the workers’ labor-power (that is, the ability of the worker to labor for certain periods).” (123) Once the artist’s work is no longer seen as financially viable to the label, the artist can be suddenly released from their contract. The artist is constantly in a precarious position, at the hands of the powerful label. The system of control over laborers is the means by which the industry has generated value from music, and the way artists have traditionally gained most of their income. When looking at royalties and the deductions system, Marx’s concept of “surplus value” is applicable. Royalties themselves are a result of negotiation, but most are below 20%. (Brain) While music is a collaborative product, and requires the labor of networks of individuals and corporations, much of the profit is soaked up by the music label. In an interview with Recording Connection, Cameell Hanna, a manager at Serenity West Recording, explained that recording labels make money “ . . . off of the exploitation of the recordings themselves, and there’s a million ways that is exploited”: So, now they make money off of every aspect of an artist’s career. There’s a deal type that’s been around for a while called the 360 deal, which means that they participate in all aspects of an artist’s career, like touring, merchandising, etc. So, you, as a label, are now making money off of pretty much every action an artist takes that involves getting income. A 360 41

deal is sort of the standard operating understanding in most labels, when you’re talking about a major label… (Recording Connection) Recording contracts have extended themselves to owning every aspect of the artists’ output even beyond music production, thereby further controlling and exploiting their precarious position. The deductions that labels take out of royalty payments to artists further exacerbate this exploitation. The labor that the artists supply comes at great cost to themselves, but the label, or capitalist, who owns not only the means of production but the product, can therefore can take money out of the artist or laborer’s pocket at will and at no correlation to their own costs. Beyond applying Marxist ideas of capitalist exploitation, the contract is, both in a historical and contemporary context, a barrier to equality in music ownership, perpetuating an already exploitative industry. This is best illustrated in K.J. Greene’s paper “Copyright, Culture & Black Music: A Legacy of Unequal Protection” which was discussed earlier in regards to African Americans being denied access to copyright. Swings in decentralization of the industry’s structure have largely determined who gets access to representation by the label, but the label has always been the gatekeeper. Music is a commodity whose rights are expropriated, bought, sold, and used as a means for profit and exploitation. This system of contracts and copyright still exists today, but the internet had an undeniable affect in how music ownership operates.

5.3 The Music Industry, Post-Internet The internet lowered barriers that previously existed in the music industry through the introduction of new file formats, democratizing software, networks that connected every corner of the globe, and the emergence of platforms that mediated flows of data. New file-sharing services and streaming platforms offered users options outside of traditional modes of distribution, such as the record store, CD shop, etc. New software and websites allowed for people of all skill-levels to create and distribute music, undermining traditional music production structures and creating new communities for people to interact in the context of music. Social media negated the need for the music industry’s

distribution and promotional channels. These new digital modes of music production, distribution, and promotion allowed artists to share their works at large scale and high speed, surpassing many of the music industry middle men and upending traditional chains of production, rendering them outdated and expensive. Because of the over-supply of music relative to demand model that the music industry had always operated upon, the vast quantity of songs available via this new format diluted an already highly constructed value of what music was worth. As market competition went up, prices were forced down. With sales dropping fast and far, and the music industry was thrown into crisis. But while the internet has split open the idea of ownership of music, systems of exploitation still underpin the industry.

5.3.1 Fast-changing formats

Music’s value has long been tied to its container technology, which has given its ability to travel. It comes as no surprise then that possibly the most infamous symbol for the digital restructuring of the music industry was the mp3. The mp3 was a “lossy compression” file, which “works by analyzing high-resolution files then trimming away the parts that humans don’t pay too much attention to” (Clayton 59). It could easily and instantly zip across the world. As a departure from “‘so called’ analogue formats” such as CDs, tapes, and vinyl, the mp3 “let music move as nothing before had”, forever changing how music was distributed and valued. (Clayton 62, Kasaras) It was a social artifact, able to be manipulated and shared easily. New software allowed mp3s to be instantly ripped from albums. Music fan sites became hotbeds of file sharing, allowing people to bond over music instantly — no more waiting for the CD shop to open. There were, of course, mp3 shops that opened up online, such as iTunes — “the industry’s attempt, in partnership with Apple, to build a digital record shop” (Seabrook “The Song Machine” 23) — but the mp3 opened up a Pandora’s box of illegal file-sharing that couldn’t be contained. The internet became dotted with deep vaults of mp3 files.

The mp3 has been around since 1987, but not until file-sharing services like Napster did its popularity explode ("One company that keeps track of cyber-traffic (www.searchterms.com) reports that MP3 has just surpassed the word 'sex' as the most popular search category on the Internet"). (Bellis, Kasaras) Because of its low cost and tiny size, this compressed file could zip across the world in a matter of minutes, turning it into the new standard music format. Originating as “an attempt to solve the problem of exchangeable formats across segments of the media industry”, the qualities of the mp3, and the affordances offered by Web 2.0, allowed for new forms of interaction on behalf of artists and consumers. (Sterne ”The mp3 as Cultural Artifact” 826) The mp3 marked a shift in how music was produced, consumed, and shared, and is therefore bound up in new digital social and labor dynamics. Johnathan Sterne, a theorist who has done considerable work on the mp3 as a digital object, referred to it as “a crystallized set of social and material relations… an item that ‘works for’ and is ‘worked on’ by a host of people, ideologies, technologies and other social material elements.” (Sterne ”The mp3 as Cultural Artifact” 826) The mp3 became a symbol for the new possibilities afforded by the internet, as well as the complications that it opened ownership up to.

5.3.2 Ownership is threatened

The mp3 posed several problems for the music industry as it stood. First, the middle-man labor that was no longer necessary in distribution represented a huge amount of jobs and money lost. Second, the accessibility of the new format opened it up to new forms of copyright infringement. The compressed file format could be shared quickly and at high speed, all for free, making it “perfectly designed for illegal file-sharing”. (Sterne ”The mp3 as Cultural Artifact” 828) Piracy sites providing deep vaults of mp3’s that could be downloaded or streamed without cost popped up, the most famous of which were Napster and mp3.com. The mp3 escalated the excitement of music consumption to an unprecedented scale, but it also opened Pandora’s box of

illegal trade. Because of this small file, “producing and distributing perfect copies of digital files became almost free, almost effortless, and almost ubiquitous.” (Smith 80) As stated before, shifts in capitalism follow technological change. The introduction of the mp3 caused the entire attitude towards music consumption to change. No longer was music a good that had to be paid for. It was now a public good that everyone had the right to access. Illegal file-sharing was no longer viewed as stealing, but a taking back of power from the music industry that had held power and controlled prices for so long. There grew “a distinction between online file-sharing and for-profit bootlegging. The topsites were seen as a morally permissible system of trade.” (Witt) Piracy was more than just an illicit activity, reserved for a few digital music nerds: “Napster had been this cultural revolution, much more than it was ever a legitimate company.” (Seabrook “Spotify”) The actual act of distributing and sharing music took on a social dimension never seen before. The rise of piracy and peer-to-peer file sharing in defiance of intellectual property saw the music industry lose control. Pink Floyd’s manager decried, “We are in the midst of a technological freak-out. The business is broken… digital technology is fundamentally changing our business in a way that no development of the last two hundred years equals, except the onset of electricity.” (Kot 1) Music sales had traditionally been the vast majority of the music industry’s revenue, all of which was now threatened — from 1999 to 2009, music sales were cut in half. (CNNMoney) “The music industry has long wished to control how consumers used its products, preferring an ideal relationship in which the purchaser is the only one licensed to enjoy the written or recorded music he purchased,” but mp3’s flowed freely in defiance. (Cummings 214) Music was no longer seen as a product to buy, but a good the public had a right to. At its peak, Napster had “more than seventy million registered accounts, with users sharing more than two billion MP3 files a month.” (Witt) Music labels panicked as they saw CD sales decline, and began legally targeting individuals: “The first year of the new millennium was the first to register a dip in global record sales… before long individual Napster users were being sued too, some 18,000 all told.” (Lamont) The FBI

cracked down on music pirating groups and crews. When Napster was finally shut down, mp3 stores such as iTunes vied for control, but it was too late: “By 2003, global recording-industry revenues had fallen from their millennial peak by more than fifteen per cent.” (Witt) Despite the closure of Napster and other file-sharing sites, “strict intellectual property laws did not deter millions of Americans from copying music, file sharing, or buying bootleg CDs”. (Cummings 213) While mp3 stores, such as iTunes, were still in operation, it was clear that the traditional music industry structure could not continue. Internet users demanded their music instantly, and for free. Faced with an uncontrollable format, the music industry was forced to adapt. Attitudes towards music consumption and ownership were forever changed. The music industry was facing a crisis, but did piracy really cause its decline? Many say no. Accounts differ as to how much these sites affected music industry revenue sales, but a 2011 study from Stanford puts the loss at about 20% from Napster alone. (Hong 321) There is even a case that claims Napster increased consumers’ appetites for music: "A chorus of studies show that Napster users buy more records as a result of using [the software]." (Lamont) Because it traveled extraordinarily well, it gave artists exposure on a scale never seen before. No longer was a purchase necessary to try out a song or album — people could listen first, and decide if they wanted to buy the mp3, CD, vinyl, or concert ticket later: “If we agree that advertising creates new needs, we can view MP3 as a special kind of advertising on a global scale for the music industry. It created many new consumers and convinced existing ones to purchased music in traditional formats.” (Kasaras) Whether or not the crisis was the fault of the mp3 and piracy alone, the music industry was forced to rethink how it could derive value from music. While today’s music technology has moved far past the mp3, it is worth reiterating its importance to shifts in music’s value. People suddenly demanded music for free, and were empowered to not only bypass the traditional music industry’s chain of distribution, but create music themselves, and share it with their friends, creating

networks. Music industry’s attempts to fight piracy and regain power failed. Piracy had changed the game. Many viewed the internet and illegal file-sharing along the same lines as those that viewed the internet as the ultimate equalizer — a neutral space where all were equal, and content was public and meant to be shared. Internet users and artists had new found freedom in DIY production, distribution, and promotion. However it was not long before the music industry found a way to reassert its power and ownership.

5.3.3 Streaming

“The problem with the music industry is piracy. Great consumer product, not a great business model. But you can’t beat technology. Technology always wins. But what if you can make a better product than piracy?” — Daniel Ek, C.E.O. of Spotify (Seabrook “Spotify”)

The music industry’s structure has long answered to music’s container technology. The industry was now faced with the task of finding value elsewhere in order to survive, and capture these new users’ energy for consumption. Out of attempts to regain profit, a new model of music consumption was born: streaming. While available to many kinds of media consumption, music streaming is defined as “a business model that is based on shared access to music content.” (Sinclair et al. 1) Streaming services typically operate by providing users access to a huge library of music, which they can play an unlimited number of times. Users do not purchase copies of songs or albums, but instead lease them, paying a fee to access them. Payment models differ between platforms – but many operate on a “freemium” model, where basic services are free to use. (Gobry) If a user wants the premium service, they must pay, typically in the form of a monthly subscription. Premium service in terms of music streaming usually involves offline listening, exclusive content, or being uninterrupted by advertisements. The paying users in these models subsidize the free users for the platform. Artists whose songs are streamed are paid a fraction of a cent

per stream, which depends on what record labels have negotiated, the monthly revenue of that specific platform, and other factors. (Forbes) Music streaming introduced a totally new concept of ownership, far more palatable to new attitudes towards music consumption. Possibly the most iconic of music streaming services is Spotify. Officially launched in 2008 in Sweden, Spotify’s users had unlimited access to a huge library of music: “On Spotify, music consumption is “frictionless”—a favorite word of Ek’s. In tech terms, we’ve gone from a world of scarcity to one of abundance. Nothing is for sale, because everything is available.” (Seabrook “Spotify”) Spotify’s success signalled a shift in the music industry and music consumption, and the industry was forced to adapt to Spotify’s success. The sense of value for music had shifted — even the very metrics of value success were now streams instead of purchases. Competitors quickly popped up — Apple Music, TIDAL, and others. These streaming services are part of the broader scheme of platform capitalism. Users pay for access with a small monthly fee, but also with their data, which streaming services used to create algorithm-based playlists, customized preferences, and more. Spotify even partnered with Facebook in 2011, giving them even more access to listeners’ personal information to find out more about listeners’ music preferences, extracting information such as “what the weather is like, what your relationship status is now on Facebook… We’ve cracked the nut as far as knowing as much about the music as we possibly can automatically, and we see the next frontier as knowing as much as we possibly can about the listener.” (Seabrook “Spotify”) Platforms became powerful depositories of information. As stated earlier, the new platform capitalist model relied on data as fuel. Streaming platforms used user data to create stronger products, competing with one another for users and market share. Platforms used exclusive content, etc. to compete with one another in attracting new users, whose data they used to make a better service to attract more users. How many times a piece of music was streamed was the new sense of value, and how many users the platform had, the more powerful it became.

Soon, a handful of streaming platforms took control. As the now de facto music listening method, the platforms could not only set the price they asked of the users while taking their data, but also how much they’d pay artists. Streaming platforms became the new music labels, but even more powerful as they ran on user data. As of January 2018, Spotify reportedly has 70 million paying users worldwide, and at least double that in total users. (Statista, Singleton) It is set to go public this year, but it’s worth noting that it still has yet to turn a profit. (Sanchez)

5.3.4 The DIY digital artist

While major artists decried doomsday, smaller independent artists had a new found sense of control over their work in the digital music industry. Piracy shifted control away from the major industry players, once again causing a swing towards decentralization. The internet’s potential for rapid and easy distribution mobilized smaller artists who were held back due to costs. Artists had more control over the production and distribution of their work, allowing them more visibility than when the music industry had tight control over whose music was produced: “...the artist is free of restrictions that the music industry often set, and consequently become more creative. It is - in other words - what Dave Steward of the band 'Eurythmics' claimed, ‘[Napster] makes artists ask why they are not in control of what they are doing. Artists of any worth of strength will rise up and take control of the situation’.” (Kasaras) Artists could produce their own music using software such as GarageBand, distribute it via sites such as SoundCloud, upload music videos to YouTube, and promote it all via social media platforms. The mp3 promised new horizons, but once the industry, and now tech companies, found a way to exert control through streaming platforms, a centralization of powers happened again. As streaming platforms took on the role of new media conglomerates and gatekeepers to music, they were fighting each other for users. Artists became instrumental pawns in this. To attract customers, many platforms such as Apple and TIDAL took on rosters of star artists who were contracted to make exclusive content hidden behind a paywall. Apple Music Radio is an example of this, as is TIDAL, which

has some of the biggest names in hip-hop and r&b signed on. These artists still belong to their record labels, but they now additionally have deals with streaming services giving them exclusive access, early releases, and more. After drops in music sales from piracy, and the tiny payout artists were getting per stream, many artists met this new model with resistance. In 2016, it was reported that Spotify paid artists only about $0.005 per stream. (Resnikoff) For a band with more than one million streams, this amounted to about $5k in payout. (Resnikoff) Their per-stream payout reportedly fell 16% between 2014 and 2016, and has continued to drop. (Musically) Apple Music, on the other hand, has a per-stream rate of $0.00735, and TIDAL boasts even more. (Musically) For major artists, who can make a lucrative career out of selling out massive venues for live performances, this is fine as they have other streams of income. But for lesser known artists, streaming payouts are not enough to make a living: “Despite its claim that it is fighting online piracy and offering the music industry a new revenue stream from the Internet, Spotify has been accused repeatedly of failing to compensate artists fairly.” (Hayes) Lady Gaga was famously only paid $167 for her hit song, “Poker Face” after it was streamed on Spotify one million times. (Brown) In a famous editorial from pop star Taylor Swift in the Wall Street Journal, she announced she’d be keeping her music from streaming platforms and wrote “In my opinion, the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work… Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently.” (Swift) Artists again became pawns to generate value for streaming services. While streaming platforms were not necessarily a place where artists would make their fortunes, they became a new venue to get discovered by fans. There was no longer a price barrier for consumers to listen to music, so they began to listen to more music than ever, allowing them to discover new artists at a greater rate. (McIntyre) Using their heightened exposure, artists were then able to form effective relationships with users online at a greater rate. This enabled them to sell more merchandise, tickets

to live music events, develop a social media presence, sell physical copies of their music, and more. A whole new value was formed through networks. In her paper “The Swedish Model: Balancing Markets and Gifts in the Music Industry”, Nancy Baym explored the effects of the internet’s destabilization of the music industry had on artists’ new roles. The paper shows that despite lost revenue from file-sharing and streaming, artists and other cultural media producers can work with the participatory nature of the internet to derive value. By “engag(ing) the audience as equals” through giving away songs and directly communicating with their audience via social media platforms, they can “build a larger community that benefits them all”. (Baym 22) “The new relationships audiences and producers must negotiate in a technological era that favors decentralization and gift exchange over control and shares” is to be found in the very networks that connect internet users, the platforms that mediate how we consume it, and the role affect plays in internet users music consumption. (36) Networks then are the tool with which artists can fight back against the centralization and control of music labels and streaming platforms. Now by uploading directly to fan blogs, social media platforms, and streaming services, artists can bypass the music label completely. Last year, Chance the Rapper made music history by becoming the first ever artist to win a Grammy for a streaming-only album, and also to not be signed to a label. (Guerassio) This could only be possible with the direct lines of communication that the internet’s networks affords between artists and their audiences. Music audience’s participation in music — interaction via social media are just the beginning: turning content into memes, creating GIFs from music videos, remixing, sampling, and more are all ways that audiences now interact with music — adds on to music’s value more than ever before. In this new participatory culture, ownership has become more abstract than ever.

5.3.5 Digital music’s cultural ownership

The internet has given many people the means to convey their identity and culture, through the way they interact online and the content they produce. It has become a means through which people connect with others. However, it has also become a place where cultural goods can be easily stolen. With music, this can be in the form of legal stealth, as discussed earlier with piracy, but also cultural stealth. In a NY Times article “The Internet Is Where We Share — and Steal — the Best Ideas”, Jenna Wortham discusses ownership in the digital age over creative and cultural ideas. She references Chris Anderson’s 2009 manifesto, “Free”. In it, he writes “it is a unique quality of the digital age that once something becomes software, it inevitably becomes free — in cost, certainly, and often in price… last century’s free was a powerful marketing method… this century’s free is an entirely new economic model.” (Anderson 12) But this idea, as Wortham notes, is reliant upon the idea that every internet user has “equal access to resources and capital” — but they don’t. (Wortham) “A governing ethos of the internet has been that whatever flows through it — information, ideas — is up for grabs”, and this includes music. (Wortham) But there are so many people that have contributed to the internet’s value, without being able to extract any value in return. The internet has allowed many people of all skill levels and experience levels to produce and distribute music, but it has also allowed them access to the deep well of ideas and cultural goods that the internet has become thanks to the affordances provides by Web 2.0. The value the internet gives to cultural goods is in its networks, its contributions by other people. The value of music has taken on new metrics — streams, but also clicks, shares, and reactions. When referring to the value in sharing the internet provides, Wortham quotes the blog TechDirt: “Copyright assumes that it’s solely the act of creation… that creates all of the value. But it’s not.” (Masnick) Now that sharing has added another dimension to a cultural product’s value, the notion of whether music is a public or private good is again brought up. In a way, the

internet returned cultural products to their origins — as a publicly produced and consumed good. A digital cultural product’s value is bound up in the social dimensions that not only created it, but it’s ability to be shared, and reworked and remixed. But Marxist notions of the worker and capitalist have not gone away — in fact, despite notions that the internet is an equalizer, exploitative labor practice is more relevant than ever, and those most marginalized are still at the highest risk: “Often, those people most responsible for cultural touchstones are unable to profit from them because they don’t have access to capital and resources… The internet has become the go-to place to toss out ideas… but it has also become the place where people go to find the best ideas, creating a lopsided dynamic that tends to benefit people in power.” (Wortham) Wortham also quotes academic Amanda Levendowski, who said “It’s not just that technology isn’t keeping pace with innovation… it’s that we aren’t keeping pace with how to serve new types of creators who have never been valued by intellectual-property regimes.” (qtd. In Wortham) The difficulty that the internet poses to music ownership is that, online, music is further reduced to its materiality — it is more easily detached from the context, history, and culture that created it. It’s made too easy to take, so it’s taken. Capitalism works off of exploitation, but also opportunity. If there is an easier, faster, or more efficient way to make money, then that path will be taken. While the internet connects all the corners of the globe, it keeps people in their corners of the world. As their cultural content is passed through the networks that connect the world’s internet users, it readily sheds its original context, and is scooped up by internet creators and producers who can pick and choose which elements they’d like to take. Cultural appropriation is happening more easily, and at a greater scale, than ever before. Music has been reduced to its materiality, and so has culture.

Chapter 6: Methodology

The methodology employed in this thesis involves taking the theoretical framework which explores the ways in which music’s ownership has been challenged by affordances offered by the internet, and testing it by applying it to three case studies. Relying on Marxist analysis of ownership and exploitation, this thesis’s argument revolves around the fundamental tension between cultural and legal ownership, as well as the public and private. When approaching such a broad topic, the case is the best way to illustrate and expand upon the theories presented thus far. In his paper “Case Studies”, Robert E. Stake said the “case study is defined by interest in individual cases”. (236) While the thesis topic is broad, what is most important is the impact of digital music ownership on the individual. Therefore, approaching these individual cases in the most holistic way possible is the best way to ground larger discussions of music ownership. As this thesis approaches new media through a culturally critical lens and not that of platforms or interfaces, it does not require the use of new media tools or data analysis, but illustrative examples that reveal broader complexities on an individual level. By approaching the following three cases with “descriptions that are complex, holistic, and involving a myriad of not highly isolated variables... and a writing style that is informal, perhaps narrative, possibly with verbatim quotation, illustration, and even allusion and metaphor,” these cases attempt to ground the broad ideas set forth thus far. (7) While this thesis is not concerned with tying up answers as it is revealing new questions, these cases attempt to, as Lauren Berlant says in her paper “On the Case”, “incite an opening, an altered way of feeling things out, of falling out of line.” (666) If the case indeed works, as Berlant says, “as an expressive form of expertise and explanation”, I will use the following examples to “point to something bigger... an offering of an account of the event and of the world.” (665) The following cases act as illustrative examples, revealing holes and areas where existing theory rests awkwardly, and seeing how the dynamics of digital music ownership play out on an individual level.

Primary and secondary sources, such as interviews, profiles, op-eds, and news reports, will bound the following cases as they illuminate the direct effects of the ideas laid out in the theoretical framework, “adding to existing experience and humanistic understanding.” (Stake “The Case Study” 7) The following case studies were selected because they each represent a different contemporary aspect of digital music — an artist, a music blog, and an album’s release. By approaching music’s ownership from different angles, this allows for a fuller view of the questions set forth. The first case is an analysis of the Syrian techno-dabke artist, Omar Souleyman, which reveals the positive and negative ways cultural identity can be conveyed online. The second, is an analysis of the blog, “Awesome Tapes From Africa”, which illustrates how digital objects such as blogs have become new centers of control, and how the music label still exists as a gatekeeper. The third is an analysis of Wu-Tang Clan’s release of the album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin”, which shows how efforts to liberate artists have instead reinforced existing power structures. I will address the following three case studies via primary and secondary sources, such as interviews, profiles, op-eds, and news reports, in order to gain a holistic picture. I will then apply the theoretical framework as I have laid out in the literature review in chapters two through five in order to address how digital music has opened up new and profound problems in regards to ownership.

Chapter 7: Case Studies

7.1 Omar Souleyman

Omar Souleyman is a 51-year-old Syrian music artist. He has been an incredibly prolific and popular wedding singer during his early career starting in 1994. He has released a suspected 600 albums, 500 of which were recorded on cassette during his time as a wedding singer alone. When Syria’s civil war broke out in 2011, Souleyman was forced to flee his hometown, Tell Tamer in the Al-Hasakah region, to Turkey to flee instability and violence: "There is really no more music in Syria.” (Mokoena, Sherwin) Souleyman’s songs are mainly about the normal topics of love and heartbreak, but his style is distinct, a “dizzying use of ululating keyboards, pounding synthesised beats and throaty vocals pays homage to dabke, a Middle Eastern line-dance synonymous with weddings and other celebrations.” (Mokoena) In many ways, Souleyman is a prime example of the global artist. He has catapulted to fame in Western audiences, selling out massive European arenas, all while keeping distinct ties to his cultural identity in his performances. Souleyman was brought to the attention of the Western music industry after Mark Gergis, a Californian musician heard Souleyman’s music played in a Damascus market. He became intrigued and compiled his favorite songs in an album. (Sherwin) Souleyman has since been represented by multiple labels, including independent US label Sublime Frequencies, independent UK label Domino, and Mad Decent, a label owned by American EDM star Diplo. (Maleney) Souleyman’s traditional Middle Eastern sounds mixed with house music rhythms and beats, resulting in a “buzz-sawing, bass-thumping reboot of an ancient folkloric musical form that sounds quaint in his homeland but avant-garde, raw, and electronic in the West.” (Beta) Souleyman now plays some of the biggest clubs in Europe to sold out shows, and even performed at SXSW in Austin, TX and the Nobel Peace Prize Concert in Norway in 2013. (Szaten)

Souleyman found unique success amongst Western audiences. During a time where media coverage of Syria was focused on the effects of its devastating war, “Mr Souleyman’s lyrics, which focus on the agony of being in love, portray Syrians as ordinary people with ordinary emotions.” (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) Mark Gergis said Souleyman “humanise(d) Syria after it had suffered years of demonisation”. (Beta) Lawrence Kumpf, Issue Project Room’s artistic director and the man who first brought Souleyman to New York echoed these sentiments: “I thought it was incredibly important to present the work of a Syrian artist like Omar Souleyman in the States at this time… On the eve of Obama announcing his plan to strike Syria, our concert felt all the more timely.” (Beta) He speaks often and proudly of the cultural influences on his music from his home country, but has long denied that his music is political. It was not until his 2017 album, To Syria With Love, that he addressed the conflict in his hometown. Even still, when he was denied access to the United States to carry out a long-planned tour due to President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”, Souleyman denies that this had any influence on his music. When asked in an interview with HighSnobiety whether or not he feels obligated to use his platform to address these issues, he replied: “No, not at all. My music and my work don’t address anything like that. The music is not about such things – very far from it.” (Boyer) Yet Souleyman’s appeal is obviously in part because of his cultural identity, something which he himself plays up during his performances. Every performances he keeps to the same costume: traditional Arab clothing, the jalabiya and keffiyeh, paired with dark sunglasses and his iconic well-kept moustache. “Mr Souleyman is not oblivious to the fact that he is putting on a show (in more than one sense: he refers to his own on-stage clothing as his “costume”).” (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) Souleyman, to the West, has become a symbol; he “has been pegged by world-music explorers as the crown sound of the Middle East”. (Trammell) It is this visual playing with Middle Eastern costume that has, in part, garnered him attention: For a generation of Americans, the jalabiya/keffiyeh combo has been portrayed in the media as a symbol of threatening villainy — from the stage antics of wrestlers the Sheik and the Iron Sheik to any number of

terrorists machine-gunned to death by action heroes on film. No doubt that such a stage outfit has contributed to Souleyman’s “exotic” appeal in the United States. (Beta) While Western audiences are entranced by the artist in traditional Middle Eastern garb bopping onstage to dabke techno, it is this cultural performance that has, somewhat ironically, garnered him the most criticism from fellow Syrians. Despite being described as “Perhaps Syria’s most successful musical export“, many Syrians have never heard of him. Jace Clayton, a.k.a. DJ/rupture, said: The most newsworthy aspect of Souleyman is how successfully he has been marketed to a Western audience in that none of his fans know dabke… Although the reverse is also true. Omar’s not one of many well-known national or international dabke stars. To cite a nearby example, they have no idea who he is in Brooklyn’s Arabic music shops. (Qtd. in Beta) When interviewed by The Economist, Iraqi criminal defense lawyer Zayid Al-Baghdadi, claims no one in his friend circle, which includes many Syrians, know of Omar Souleyman, and that it wasn’t until he moved to Montreal that he became familiar: When I first saw Omar perform here, I was just amazed by the cultural clash between him and the audience… Here you have a middle-aged Arab man dressed in traditional bedouin clothing and a crowd of intoxicated, pot-smoking hipsters dancing frantically to his music. I think what has added to Omar’s appeal in the West is the fact that his music has been slightly tweaked to better suit modern Western dance-music tastes. (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) “Tweaking” is, of course, just another word for marketing. Omar Souleyman’s rocket to fame came in part because of his partnering with Western artists, such as Icelandic icon Bjork, with whom he created a joint album in 2011, creating "the first-ever major western pop release to feature Syrian dabke and Iraqi choubi music". (Breihan) As Bill Gragin, Lincoln Center’s Director of Public Programming remarked: “It was smart building on that base through the remixes with influential indie/electronic artists like Four Tet and Björk.” (Beta) Souleyman’s appeal is not only that he visually evokes the culture of Syria, but also that he, and by extension Syria, have been marketed to be palatable to Western audiences.

Souleyman’s “tweaking” has lost him Syrian fans: “...among (Syrians) who have (heard of him), tastemakers frown upon his mediocre representation of the country’s musical prowess and his kitsch take on one of their oldest traditions…” (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) A student interviewed by The Economist said “he represents nothing of our real Syrian culture…our country is already destroyed…we do not want further destruction of our culture.” (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) Many Syrians don’t claim him, and resent his using their culture to evoke exotic fantasies of where they come from. This exoticism is something that the Western labels who picked him up were all too aware of: “Gergis sought out Souleyman, in part, because ‘it felt important to try and help humanize Syria after it had suffered years of demonization. Many Americans were ignorant of the country and its culture, and I hoped by releasing Omar’s music, I could help remedy this.’” (Beta) This is echoed in the words of Lawrence Kumpf above. Souleyman is an interesting example of how technology has rapidly accelerated globalization, making cultural products utilized for cultural exchange and vulnerable to cultural appropriation. Souleyman’s style is undoubtedly his key draw — turning traditional Middle Eastern musical elements into a bionic new genre through his contorting of dabke: “As the technology improved, Sa’id began to use a Korg synthesizer to reproduce all of the sounds of the traditional dabke band in a drastically electrified fashion”. (Beta) However, it can be argued that Souleyman rose to fame of such heights because of the platforms he utilized to expose Western audiences to his art. Possibly the biggest part of Souleyman’s marketing is his YouTube channel. His music video for Warni Warni has more than 31 million views, and his others also have a few million a piece. (YouTube “Warni Warni (Official Video)”) In his music videos he can be seen as putting on the same stage presence as during his shows, delivering his iconic image to those who have not yet seen him live. His YouTube fame is also what attracted Bjork to seek collaboration in the first place. (Bjork) Using social media platforms such as YouTube has allowed Souleyman to create a network of fans to whom he can project his narrative.

Beyond this, technology has also allowed him to perform in places where he is physically not allowed. As a Syrian citizen, Souleyman has faced many legal issues while trying to perform abroad: “In 2013, his application for a work visa to play Sweden’s Way Out West festival was denied on the premise he would take root and claim asylum there, and earlier this year, a set at SXSW was shelved due to President Trump’s harebrained travel ban.” (Szaten) An article in NPR featured Souleyman, among other musicians, who were being kept from performance opportunities because of Trump’s executive order, many of whom cited technology as a way they were working around it. Iranian producer Mahdyar Aghajani said: "The borders, they cannot stop us… Right now, with all this technology, we don't have to physically be there to do a show. I mean, you've got projection to hologram to augmented reality, virtual reality, all these streaming services. There's so many technologies right now that we have access to, that I think the artists should be creative…” (Tsioulcas) The internet has allowed artists such as Souleyman to build a network of fans all over the world, and technological innovation has allowed them to build and maintain relationships with them. Technology has given Souleyman access and opportunity, but it is not enough for him to escape political racism. “Syrian nationality, by proxy, is an easily weaponised issue,” and while Souleyman has become somewhat of an icon for people’s perceptions of Syria, many have used this to turn him into a caricature. (Szaten) His viral video for “Warni Warni” resulted in photoshopped images from it spreading as memes. Internet users cut out his appearance, pasting it into unrelated scenarios, using his Middle Eastern appearance to make jokes. (Know Your Meme) Souleyman has referenced this in interviews, saying “There are a lot of people amongst my Arab audience who use social media and other platforms to mock me and undermine my success.” (Szaten) While Souleyman has used social media platforms to disseminate his own narrative, there is a simultaneous narrative being projected upon him as with all artists. Omar Souleyman is an excellent example of the dangers that the internet holds for issues of cultural appropriation. Yes, western audiences are excited by his music, but some criticize Souleyman for pandering to audiences that don’t have a true

understanding of Syrian culture or have any idea what he’s actually saying. A scene at his performance in London was described in The Economist: Mr. Souleyman’s music seems to satisfy an urge for the exotic among the nouveaux hipsters of England’s capital. Not always with success, however. His set at KOKO, which culminated in a track demanding audience participation, was met with a mildly excruciating silence from a crowd bewildered by the array of Arabic words and phrases. (A small pocket of ardent Arab fans right at the front did their best to make up for it.) (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) Souleyman has certainly found an audience, but are they there for the music, or the exotic performance, or both? Does it matter? Souleyman undoubtedly brought Syrian music and culture to Western audiences on an unprecedented scale, even if it perhaps falls on deaf ears. Whether he intended it or not, “without a doubt, Omar Souleyman is the most popular Syrian wedding singer in the Western world. Beyond President Bashar al-Assad, he may be the next Syrian who an American music fan could name.” (Beta) His genre-breaking style has resulted in truly exciting new music. Yet Souleyman is also aware of the dynamics at play during his shows: “It’s a very different culture from the U.S., where wars are not a daily occurrence… I don’t think people here understand what’s going on in Syria. In America, everyone has a job and life that is not war. Us, on the other hand, we’re busy with all these wars and violence, and all these factions competing for power.” (Beta) Souleyman’s music “encourages a cultural curiosity that is hard to achieve through other means. Those at his shows are embracing Arab culture, or at least the closest variant they can get, and this can only be a positive sign in the current climate of ill-feeling towards the Middle East.” (The Economist “Omar Souleyman”) But the question remains as to whether Westerners are using Souleyman to exploit Syrian culture for the sake of a fun party. His lyrics may attempt to humanize Syrians in the ongoing media onslaught of images of devastation, but what good is this in a London club where most can’t understand his words? Omar Souleyman’s success represents the complex dangers that befall cultural products that reach viral fame on the internet.

7.2 Awesome Tapes from Africa “The premise is simple: Find a tape, post the music online, let the listening party ensue. Pertinent details beyond who the artist is—where he or she lives, who plays the instruments, when it was recorded—may or may not be provided.” — Tad Hendrickson, Village Voice

Started in 2006, Awesome Tapes from Africa (ATFA) was founded by Brian Shimkovitz, an American ethnomusicologist and general music enthusiast. While studying in Ghana on a Fulbright Scholarship in 2002, Shimkovitz encountered markets where “street vendors hawked West African recordings in myriad genres, from highlife to African disco, old left-field soul to curious local pop”. (Resident Advisor) He was instantly “hooked on the cassette culture of the region”, and returned year after year with empty suitcases ready to be filled. (Resident Advisor) After amassing a collection, Shimkovitz began uploading the mixtapes online, transferring them from an analogue format to mp3. He then created a blog where these songs could be freely streamed or downloaded. He has regularly returned to Africa, “hitting up market stalls and secondhand shops to dig up cassette curios.” (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) Shimkovitz’s blog has become well-known in music circles, and has launched numerous for-profit ventures as well as critical discussion on the potential that digital music has in its connection to power and exploitation. The blog has found an audience with a fascination for “African” sounds. Shimkovitz has used the attention he received to launch a music label and become a successful DJ. He has DJ’d all over the world, using his Awesome Tapes from Africa, mixing them up, blending them together — “I play music from as many regions and movements as the mood and night allow.” (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) The blog itself is a repository of music from all over the continent: “Every post is a glimpse into a different corner of the vast African musical diaspora, be it South African synth pop, praise music from Northern Ghana or vocal and string music from Ethiopia.” (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) The tracks are accompanied only with a scan of the album’s cover art, often a

short description or remark by Shimkovitz — An example from the track page of the artist Florence Namirimu’s album: Ziba Bbiri: “Oh hi, here’s some music from Uganda called kadongo kamu and it’s very wonderful. Florence Namirimu is a killer and she burns through 6 tracks here, leaving you exhausted yet highly stimulated. I friended her on FB, lets see if she responds.” (Shimkovitz “Florence Namirimu”) The only information about Brian and ATFA available on the site is the following: This is music you won’t easily find anywhere else—except, perhaps in its region of origin. If you are an artist/etc and wish for me to remove your music, email me. The albums for sale I have licensed in collaboration with the artists who get 50% of any profits; the tapes posted here are free downloads for which I do not have the rights. (Shimkovitz “About”) Before becoming a full-blown business, the blog started out as a hobby of pure enthusiasm: “The idea was that maybe a bunch of people out there don't get the chance to hear African music that's only available locally. So I was posting cassettes consistently for a long time just to stay mellow on the weekends.“ (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) Following its success, Shimkovitz’s music label of the same name launched in 2011: “Now Awesome Tapes is a full-blown record label, releasing cassettes and vinyl records by a mixture of underground gems and African stars.” (Williams “A Decade of Music”) Like the blog states, the label splits the profits with the artists 50/50, but the vast majority of the content is free. In an interview with Southern California Public Radio, Shimkovitz says “It’s a great deal for them ... typically free money because it’s a record that they’ve already made. So the artists get paid every six months and all the records, except for one, are making money at this point.” (Lanz) ATFA’s blog and label have been lauded for launching African artists out of near obscurity, and revitalizing their career by introducing them to new and enthusiastic Western audiences: ”...these releases have sparked newfound interest in many artists—the likes of Hailu Mergia, Nahawa Doumbia and SK Kakraba have all toured Europe following ATFA releases.” (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) His blog has been called “revelatory”: “In 2006, the sounds were revelatory, Shimkovitz introducing Western audiences to diverse musical styles like hiplife and kuduro, which sound at once regionally rooted and globally pop.” (Williams “A Decade of Music”) The media narrative

around ATFA is that Shimkovitz ushered in a newfound enthusiasm for “African” sounds, bringing artists out of obscurity and exposing them to Western audiences, giving them new potential for profit. One article from The Guardian says: It's easy to see why none of these recordings have previously surfaced outside their primary markets: for one thing, the production in most instances is incredibly raw, with none of the polish that bestselling world music albums enjoy. And before the web with its long tail came along, who could have known that there'd be an audience for such stuff, never mind a means of distributing it? (Smith) ATFA is hailed as a savior, helping African diasporic artists of all levels of fame: “The first release in 2011, of singer Nahawa Doumbia, introduced the West to the Malian megastar, and found her an audience through Europe (Shimkovitz recently linked Doumbia up with Red Bull, who sponsored her European tour).” (Williams “A Decade of Music”) Yet another: “Other albums like a release by South African artist Penny Penny resurrected his once-successful career, having been somewhat forgotten since the 1990s.” (Williams “A Decade of Music”) Shimkovitz did indeed introduce African artists to Western audiences, and this was only possible through the affordances of the internet. Through creating a blog, Shimkovitz has utilized networks to add value to African artists’ works, providing them the means to connect to larger audiences, giving them opportunity to both perform live abroad, and exposure to lucrative partnerships. By transforming cassettes into mp3s, users from all over the world were able to download the music, share it, remix it, and more. African music’s digitalization and “making their music available for free as a means of injecting spurts of visibility in an over-saturated marketplace”, as Shimkovitz claims, has allowed for it to make “major headway with their localised approach to using the web and digitized media”: Not only are young people in Africa making beats in their bedrooms and posting them on Facebook and Soundcloud. Not only are elder statesmen of African music finding new revenue streams via CD and MP3 reissues and digital-only recataloguing of their songs. Not only are African urbanites even more connected to the world’s music scenes through the internet, thereby continuing the circle of influence and inspiration that has

been critical to music’s evolution since humans began singing songs... I view the overall digitization of African music as a facet of globalisation, a process from which I now believe it is completely unfair and quasi-racist to shield African art and music. (Shimkovitz “Collateral Damage”) Shimkovitz makes the claim that to shield African music from globalization is in fact “quasi-racist” in that it disallows many artists opportunities that they would not have otherwise. But, racism aside, what remains is that Shimkovitz is working in a dubiously legal realm in his sharing of works for free he has no ownership to. While Shimkovitz makes an interesting point regarding denying opportunity and exposure to African artists, criticism of ATFA is equally legitimate. First, legally, “the blog kind of exists in a gray area because it’s music that isn’t available for sale anywhere. But I also haven’t been given permission to post it... But if somebody is upset with that, I’m happy to take it down.” (Lanz) He argues that the music he makes available for free would not have become profitable anyway: "I imagine that a lot of the artists whose recordings have surfaced on Awesome Tapes from Africa never made a lot of money from them anyway – they've always been used to piracy. So the idea that someone somewhere else is bootlegging their material: it's not new to them." (Smith) In this way, Shimkovitz is arguing that he is returning the music to its cultural roots — that it was made to be shared, not dependent on profit, and he is merely allowing for that to happen on a larger scale. He does indeed search for artists to ask their permission, something he claims makes up the majority of his work: “One of the hardest things has been tracking down the artists I am interested in. I spend a ton of time searching for people through every means you can imagine, from emailing dozens of strangers and organizations and journalists in a particular region or cold-calling people on Skype or just showing up places and asking around for a while”. (Resident Advisor “RA.517”) Whether or not he can find the artists, Shimkovitz will still publish the works online for free download. While Shimkovitz’s legal ownership is in the grey area, there are also many implications for cultural ownership. By republishingthe works on ATFA and becoming the music label, Shimkovitz is, whether intentionally or not, exerting ownership over the

works. A review from Resident Advisor of a Shimkovitz DJ set said “Much of his style is largely unheard outside of West Africa.” (Resident Advisor) His style. When becoming the central gatekeeper through which the African tapes travel, ATFA controls how and where these African tapes are going, with mostly no permission form the original owner. His eponymous music label further exerts control. No matter how good the royalty rates are, a contract is still in place. Shimkovitz’s claims that African artists want exposure may be true — but how is he to know for the artists he can’t ask? Until he is asked to take the tapes down, he is benefiting off of them. What’s more is that many African artists he represents are unable to speak for their work due to language barriers. An article for The Guardian includes the disclaimer: “Unfortunately, Doumbia, who "lives a ways from Bamako and doesn't speak much French", was not available for comment on this article.” (Smith) By treating African tapes as items in a depository, Shimkovitz is reducing them to their materiality, the “African” sound scapes that make them so appealing, stripping them of their individual cultural context. While Brian Shimkovitz maybe an audiophile and well-researched in African music, the vast majority of people he is opening up this depository to are not held to the same standard. And African artists, even if they know their work is being put out there in such a way, are not necessarily in control of their narrative. The narrative around ATFA quickly turns to white American saving African artists. Shimkovitz addresses criticism often. Referred to in one article as “sensitive to any suggestion that he has exploited artists through releasing their material without permission”, it is clear that Shimkovitz has come up against this criticism many a time, and is on the defense: “Is the enterprise merely a post-colonial thievery corporation hiding behind the thin veil of millennial digital exploration? I know my mission comes from a place of wanting to provide a global promotional window to listeners who yearn for more flavours.” (Smith, Shimkovitz “Collateral Damage”) He combats the morality of putting artworks up for free without permission by emphasizing the access he has given to artists: “The artists featured on my site, whose music has been freely downloadable,

have gained pockets of fans outside Africa. A crucial thing for me has always been finding a way to promote the music among people who would not normally have access to it. ATFA has thus far been efficient in achieving this goal.” (Shimkovitz “Collateral Damage”) For now, Shimkovitz is traveling the world, being paid for DJ gigs and making 50% profit off of music from his label — but 100% of the profit from those not on his label or those who he is unable to contact.

7.3 Once Upon a Time in Shaolin

The Wu-Tang Clan are amongst the most iconic and revered hip-hop groups in the genre’s history. Begun in 1993 in Staten Island New York, the group originally had nine members: founder RZA, GZA, Method Man, Raekwon, Ol’ Dirty Bastard, Ghostface Killah, Inspectah Deck, U-God, and Masta Killa. (Erlewine) Their namesake and signature style comes from kung-fu movies which they would watch as kids while they were skipping class in a Times Square movie theater. (Luling) RZA has cited kung-fu movies’ recurring theme of defying oppressive regimes as the group’s inspiration: “The element that resonated with me was people being oppressed by the government and young people just wanting to make a difference… I guess around the same time I was becoming conscious of black consciousness and the struggles of the ‘60s and the ‘70s. Realizing the differences in the world of how we’re treated.” (Luling) Their group has evolved around these ideas, and they have since put out a discography of hit records — their 1993 album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) went certified platinum. They have been revered by many as the greatest hip-hop group in history. In 2014, they became embroiled in the center of discussion surround music ownership in the age of the internet. In a joint statement in March 2014, online auction house Paddle8 and RZA announced that Wu-Tang Clan’s newest album, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, would be exclusive to one copy, and put up for private sale. (Gilkes et al.) Until it’s sale, it would be hidden away from the public: “The sole extant recording of its 31 tracks sits locked away in a hand-carved nickel and silver container inside a cedar box swathed in black cow leather in Morocco, waiting to be sold off by the auction house of Damien Hirst and David LaChapelle for a minimum bid of $5 million.” (Kornhaber) The controversial choice of release sparked a huge discussion of music’s value and ownership. Wu-Tang made the album as exclusive as possible. While the physical record remained locked away, the music’s copyright was equally restricted: “The songs' copyrights aren’t for sale, though; the plan is for the band to wait 88 years before

officially releasing the record, meaning that fans will have to wait to find out via whatever will have replaced iTunes in 2103.” (Kornhaber) Before it’s sale, it was streamed to a private party of journalists, patrons, and radio contest winners in MoMA PS1, a New York museum. A journalist present at the presentation described the atmosphere as “weird”: “Certainly I endorse rap’s claim to art, but I often wonder why they want to perform this claim in the institutions of the art world. This fragile union of cross-cultural interest reminded me of Jay Z’s performance with Marina Abramovic — which I saw live and hated — only this was less embarrassing.” (Sturgeon) A curator for the museum announced to the audience they were “‘very privileged’ to hear the first, last, and only ‘public’ listening session of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin.” (Sturgeon) To many, the concept fit uncomfortably not only with who many perceived Wu-Tang Clan and hip-hop to be about, but also raised awkward questions of music’s purpose. How did such a concept come about? The album’s producer, Dutch rapper and manager Tarik Azzougarh (a.k.a. Cilvaringz) said the idea came about when him and RZA were “Halfway up the Great Pyramid Cheops… while contemplating the Three Age of Man.” (Sturgeon) The idea for the album was that it would “sonically travel back to the 36 chambers.” (Sturgeon) RZA further expanded on the album’s mission in the announcement letter published on Paddle8: In an age where the work of musicians is increasingly perceived as being as accessible, affordable, and expendable as a box of paperclips, acknowledgement of the profound artistry required to write a moving verse, produce a transformative album, or navigate a formidable career, is often reduced to an unread liner note… Such a scenario in the art world—if the only Picassos to be seen were postcards—is unimaginable. (Stutz) In interviews since, RZA has claimed that the concept was a reaction to the feeling that music has been steadily devalued because of the affordances of technology, introduction of streaming, and beholdance to data-based consumerism, endangering the livelihood of the artist: When recorded music loses its monetary value, it’s the little guy who suffers most. Artists at the top of the tree have other potential revenue streams. They can tour, they can license, synchronize, and diversify into

fashion or film. But an independent musician starting out has none of those options. He needs the thousand copies of his album to be worth something. Recorded music is the work of art. (Scluzay) The album’s one-off sale was meant to elevate music to the level of fine-art, symbolically restoring value to music. By limiting music to one copy, RZA says, the music would reverse the effects of the internet: “...limiting the album to one copy will not immediately reattach value to all recorded music, but the debate that our approach has sparked might eventually lead to a change in the perception, value and appreciation of music as a work of art and that is why we feel the sacrifice is worth it.” (Scluzay) By keeping his music from being “a click away”, RZA says this “question(s) whether universal accessibility has diminished the way we experience music.” (Scluzay) The release style of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was therefore a direct criticism on the internet, and how it has undermined the value in music as an art. The announcement received a flurry of criticism, from music critics and fans alike. Many dismissed the release as a PR stunt, and an attempt to reverse recent years of low Wu-Tang album sales: “Everything about acclaimed rap group the Wu-Tang Clan’s upcoming album "Once Upon a Time In Shaolin" sounds like a publicity stunt.” (Pinsker) Yet another said: “The whole thing sounded like a high-minded art-scam meant to avoid the consumerist judgment of Wu-Tang fans.” (Sturgeon) Others claimed it was an act of elitism. In a Clash Music article titles “Wu-Tang Clan Are Killing Music”, Joe Zadeh writes: “It seems the elitist, 1% savvy, corporation-groping sector of mainstream hip-hop will finally get its first great masterpiece… And to the rest of us? A modern cultural obscenity.” (Zadeh) The event even split Wu-Tang itself. Upon hearing of the stunt in an interview with XXL Magazine, Method Man said: I'm tired of this shit and I know everybody else is tired of it, too. Fuck that album, if that's what they are doing... When music can't be music and y'all turning it into something else, fuck that. Give it to the people, if they want to hear the shit, let them have it. Give it away free. I don't give a fuck; that ain't making nobody rich or poor. Give the fucking music out. Stop playing with the public, man. (Johnson)

RZA and Cilvaringz have denied any intention of elitism: “The end goal is actually the exact opposite of elitism. Yes, the album in itself will only be owned by someone who can afford it. Only one man can hold the scepter. But look beyond the prize and prestige of owning this album and focus on the statement it carries and you’ll see that we’re trying to reattach values to music for the benefit of all kinds of musicians.” (Scluzay) Ghostface Killah agreed: “I think the only way to establish value in something is for it to be exclusive. That’s the whole point that I gathered for that particular piece of art. Music is also art, but it’s been devalued because of how it’s looked at now in the industry.” (Kyles) Fans felt as though they were being stolen from, and even launched a Kickstarter in the attempts to raise enough money to bid on the album (the description read: “the rest of us get to enjoy an epic album instead of some uber-rich bastard keeping it to himself like a collector's item”), but to no avail. (Pinsker) The album was put up for auction on Paddle8, and sold to a private bidder. In 2015, Bloomberg released the identity of the buyer: Martin Shkreli. (Leonard et al.) Shkreli was a 32-year-old Pharma exec who had reached notoriety for having increased the price of a life-saving drug treating AIDS, Daraprim, by 5000%. (Pollack) He was a reviled figure, and used as a symbol for the corruption and unbridled power of the pharmaceutical industry. He was a topic of conversation in the 2018 Presidential election race — Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton denounced: “Price gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous.” (Clinton) Republican candidate Donald Trump commented: “He looks like a spoiled brat to me.” (LoGiurato) He became “may be the most hated man in America.” (Thomas et al.) Shkreli himself seemed to revel in his infamy, saying he wished he’d raised the price of the AIDS drug Diaprim even more. (Diamond) He rumored to have paid $2 million for the album, well below it’s $5 million minimum bid, and he provoked fans outrage further by showing a disinterest in listening to the album: “I don’t know. I’ll probably never even hear it. I just thought it would be funny to keep it from people.” (Graham) Why did Shkreli, the ultimate symbol of corrupt capitalism, buy Once Upon a Time in Shaolin? Bloomberg, who broke the story, wrote Shkreli was told “if he bought

the record, he would have the opportunity to rub shoulders with celebrities and rappers who would want to hear it. ‘Then I really became convinced that I should be the buyer,’ Shkreli says.” (Leonard et al.) Shkreli met with RZA after the purchase: “We didn’t have a ton in common… I can’t say I got to know him that well, but I obviously like him.” (Leonard et al.) Upon hearing that Bloomberg was going to release the identity of the buyer, RZA emailed the publication a statement: “The sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was agreed upon in May, well before Martin Skhreli’s [sic] business practices came to light. We decided to give a significant portion of the proceeds to charity.” (Leonard et al.) The story went viral, and fans were outraged. Not only was the initial concept of selling the album to one private buyer leaving them all without, now the rights of the album were going to the ultimate symbol of capitalism: the reviled Martin Shkreli. An MTV article title in particular summed up the reaction cross the media well: “The Guy Who Bought That $2 Million Wu-Tang Album Is A Real-Life Supervillain”. (Fleischer) Shkreli began trolling fan communities, nonchalantly playing snippets of the album in the background of live YouTube streams, and leaking leaked several songs from the album in celebration of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential win. (Britton) In September of 2017, it was announced that Martin Shkreli was going to sell Once Upon a Time in Shaolin on eBay. (O’Connor) Before the sale could be finalized – the winner of the auction was Matt “M-Eighty” Markoff, a Wu-Tang affiliate for a reported $1,025,100 — Shkreli was arrested on accusations of solicitation of assault after he offered $5k for a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair. (Eustice) The sale was not able to be finalized, and the future of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin hangs in the balance. He still has yet to listen to it in full: “Album is in a vault.. I probably won't listen to it for years.” (Kornhaber) While the sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin did not turn out as RZA originally intended, it did indeed open up questions regarding music’s value and ownership. But did it do as it claimed, to “challenge the Spotify culture that has devalued music to the point where only a handful of artists are making significant amounts of money”?

(Caless) The sale was not able to be finalized, and the future of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin hangs in the balance. He still has yet to listen to it in full: “Album is in a vault.. I probably won't listen to it for years.” (Kornhaber)

Chapter 8: Discussion

While these case studies are unique in that they approach the topic of music ownership from three different perspectives — a music blog and label, an artist’s cultural performance, and an album’s distribution — each underline the ways in which technology has afforded unique situations to arise that question digital music’s ownership. These cases have illustrated the ways in which the new power structures of the internet have played out on an individual level. The case of Omar Souleyman reveals how global artists have used social media and networking platforms to perform their culture and identity. By using electronic music styles, Souleyman has created a bionic genre in techno dabke. This case illustrates where the danger lies in the internet’s acceleration of globalization, in that it makes artists vulnerable to cultural appropriation on a larger scale. By evoking his home country, Souleyman has become a symbol of the Middle East for Western audiences. While he dons traditional Middle Eastern garb in his performances and YouTube videos, but still having barriers when it comes to language, Souleyman has become somewhat of a performative caricature figure. The “tweaking” his musical style has undergone, as well as his partnerships with major Western superstars like Bjork, makes him more palatable to online and Western audiences. In doing do, Souleyman sacrifices the complexities of his culture and the ongoing conflicts in Syria, something he himself recognizes. It is clear in the remarks of music executives such as Gergis and Kumpf that Souleyman was championed for his visual connection to Syria, furthering a Western orientalism and fetish. Furthermore, the marketing he has undergone has alienated him from his countrymen, who can’t recognize themselves in his cultural performance. On the other hand, Souleyman has successfully used new technology to create new interesting styles of music and utilized social media to introduce a humanized image of Syria to Westerners. In the case of Awesome Tapes from Africa, Shimkovitz, a music enthusiast, has turned his passion for collecting African tapes into a music blog and label. By collecting

and distributing a hodgepodge of African works, Shimkovitz attempts to give overlooked or long forgotten African artists a spotlight. However, in doing so, he is reducing the music to its materiality, making it easily downloadable and shared, remixed – by Shimkovitz himself, as well as others — and separated from its attached cultures. This is further complicated in that Shimkovitz does not own the rights to the music he posts, leaving ATFA in a grey area legally. While some of these artists have gone on to reach new levels of fame, many are still without the access to be able to control their own image. Shimkovitz has also turned the site into a for-profit music label, and launched a DJing career off of ATFA’s success. When put in the context of discussed ideas of how cultural products such as music are imbued with the social relations in which they are created, his mixing, mashing, remixing and performing of non-Western identities for huge groups of Western audiences takes on colonialist tones. Shimkovitz himself discusses these issues with his work, but just because he’s well-meaning, republishing others work for the love of music, and doling out good royalty rates does not mean ATFA doesn’t play into the issues of control inherent to how record labels function, and the exploitations of commodified music in general. Shimkovitz’s good intentions are ultimately overshadowed by a power imbalance, and the fact that he is still deriving profit from other artists’ works and culture. The case of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin does not deal with the internet’s effects in terms of globalization, but instead presents a case where an artist is attempting to fight against the affordances offered by the internet in order to reclaim music’s value. RZA decided to make the album as exclusive as possible, attaching a high price tag to it, literally locking it away in a silver box and figuratively locking it away from release for 88 years via copyright. RZA is attempting to deny networks their chance to affect its value, which he sees as negative. But RZA confuses high-price with high-value, and is also missing the point of the value added to music via networks. While piracy, streaming and social media have changed the value of music, they have offered new avenues for artists to connect with their fans. By literally trying to elevate Once Upon a Time in Shaolin to high art, he is stripping music of perhaps its most

important element — community. What was meant to be subversive is in fact the ultimate act of capitalism. A hip-hop album from one of the most iconic groups to ever do it is literally being locked away from the public, the gateway to which is being guarded by a fire-breathing, capitalist dragon. “The irony of it is that we did it for the fans,” said Cilvaringz. (Sturgeon) Irony, indeed. The performative release failed in its subversity. John Strohm, a music lawyer to Bon Iver and the Civil Wars, claims the album’s release strategy is nothing new, and in fact plays into traditional music industry systems of control: “What’s new is the way this is being framed… It’s almost exactly like the kind of deal they might make with Sony,” but in Wu-Tang’s model an individual has taken the place of a label. (Pinskier) In each of these cases, we see the value and danger in networks. As Baym pointed out in “The Swedish Model: Balancing Markets and Gifts in the Music Industry”, artists can derive value from new kinds of interactions with fans and online communities. (Baym 22) Omar Souleyman and Awesome Tapes from Africa are similar in the sense that the positive effects of artists who would not previously have been given access to a global audience, now can with the internet. Through social media and blogs, artists can perform their culture to new audiences, shaping their narrative. Yet, with both, the issue of control is still present. Who exactly is shaping their narrative? In the case of Souleyman, there is no evidence to suggest he has not chosen the image he presents. However, from interviews with music industry professionals who gave him the platform, it seems as though he was only given it to fulfill Western fantasies of the Middle East. In the case of Awesome Tapes from Africa, Shimkovitz, no matter how well-meaning and self-critical, still acts as the central unit of control, as labels do. He cannot escape the power he holds over artists he works with on his label, let alone those whose work he republishes on his blog without their knowing or consent. For Souleyman and AFTA, the issue of exploitation and cultural appropriation is present. As music has moved online, it is easier and easier to take aesthetic elements from it, ignoring the more complicated and uncomfortable politics of cultural consumption. This plays into ideas previously discussed about whiteness being allowed

a complexity that other cultures are not. While Souleyman can choose how he presents himself, he cannot choose how he is looked at. The same goes for the artists under the Awesome Tapes from Africa label. Both these cases show the dangers that befall all musicians as geographic boundaries have dissolved, and culture has become packaged for the internet. The case of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin takes a different approach to networks. In attempting to reject networks, RZA is missing out on the communities of fans and potential consumers that maybe wouldn’t purchase an album like he claims, but could add value through other means. In doing so, he’s actually playing directly into power structures that already exist and are actually to blame for artists being held in precarious positions. RZA is making a piece of music as commodified as it possibly can be, symbolically and literally. It is therefore made easy for capitalists like Martin Shkreli to hijack the work, allowing the album to reinforce the exploitative forces in the music industry that RZA rails against. This is all the more ironic when taking into consideration the group’s anti-establishment origins. This strategy is only possible, also ironically, because Wu-Tang are an established and respected group. What do these cases mean for digital music’s ownership? Thanks to the internet, new avenues for extracting value have been found that circumvent traditional music industry power structures. Networks of internet users hold within them the power to decentralize ownership of music, dissolving systems of control and exploitation. However, the structure and nature of the internet also opens up many questions as to what ownership now means. In terms of legal ownership over music, intellectual property still exists, but as the internet turns the world into an information-based society, more and more things can easily slip through the cracks of legal protection. Blogs like ATFA operate in these grey areas. In terms of cultural ownership, ATFA and Omar Souleyman shows that increasingly the internet is making it more difficult to keep cultural identity intact, and keep cultural products in the right hands. However, the case of Wu-Tang’s album release shows that the new affordances offered by the internet must be grappled with head on, and not avoided.

Ownership is the way in which people extract value from products, but it ultimately is about control. Who controls music? The cases of Omar Souleyman, Awesome Tapes from Africa, and Once Upon a Time in Shaolin reveal the ways in which the concept of ownership is more slippery than ever, and, from both a legal and cultural perspective, is impossible to address.

Chapter 9: Conclusion

As music, and the rest of the world, moves online, new questions of ownership and value opened like chasms. Capitalism was transformed, along with almost every other aspect of our daily lives, including the way we consume, work, and interact with one another. A globe that was once separated by geographic borders was all of a sudden compressed into a digital space, and it became faster and easier than ever to consume cultural products. More people had access to information than ever before and a new unexplored territory opened up regarding identity and cultural expression, while at the same time troubling traditional notions of legal and cultural ownership. At the frontier of this change was the music industry. Long organized into a strictly controlled system of ownership via intellectual property, the music industry underwent a complete transformation when confronted with the digital. The mp3 changed the culture of music consumption, causing the old industry to collapse, and streaming platforms to rise out of its dust. As artists found a new precarity in their labor, music’s value transformed into one of streams and networks. New opportunities for exploitation rose, which are still dynamically changing every day, and undermine attempts by artists to exert ownership over their work. In addressing digital music ownership, this thesis opens up more questions than it ties up answers. The three case studies of Omar Souleyman, Awesome Tapes from Africa, and Once Upon a Time in Shaolin represent just a few of many examples illustrating how issues of ownership sit uncomfortably with internet affordances. While it seemed as though the internet would become an equal realm, a nirvana of democracy free from the prejudices that befall us in the “real” world, these structures still exist online, hidden within platform infrastructures. This topic is important precisely because of the questions it opens up. Can artists and internet users ever truly be subversive when operating within new, and perhaps more powerful, exploitative structures? How can we as music consumers attempt to

move about this new digital space responsibly? Is there a need for a totally new system of ownership and value online? The internet has massive consequences for the world’s cultural producers, because, whether they like it or not, cultural work is now online. There are so many instances of digital cultural ownership that rest uncomfortably with traditional notions of ownership and value. It is in these instances that those most marginalized are at the highest risk of falling into the cracks, being left unable to claim the value from their work. But the internet is still new territory, and its rules are being creating every day. What flaws are recognized within its system that allow for people to be exploited could mean change for the future. In the context of music, who controls it now is not necessarily who will own it in this future. As power is so often tied to centralizalization, future studies on digital music ownership should explore new organizations of the internet, such as emerging blockchain technologies. For example, how could cryptocurrencies revolutionize artist payments? How could contracts be restructured on the blockchain? Could this be a new realm for artists to reclaim power, or will tech conglomerates find a way to centralize it all once again? What does an equal internet look like, and what does that mean for global music? The question of who owns music is more confusing as ever. While this is the topic of this thesis, perhaps the question at its core is how do we treat each other now that our world has gone online? By addressing the ways in which people move about power structures, we are again and again confronted with ourselves, and the ways in which we are and aren’t reinforcing discriminatory and exploitative forces. Music is ultimately about community, and we have a hand in deciding what that community looks like in the future.

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank the following people for their assistance in the completion of this thesis. I’d first and foremost like to thank the help of my thesis supervisor, Niels van Doorn – I’m really sorry for all of the horrible drafts I sent your way, and I appreciate that you held me accountable for it. Thank you as well to my parents, Harry, and Stella who provided unlimited emotional and mental support through the process. Lastly, I would like to thank my incredibly supportive group of friends, including Mackenzie, Louis, and members of the Amsterfam, especially including Anna, Arnaud, Lina, Billy, Sal, Rianne, Matthias, and Harry, for always offering to read drafts and provide feedback. Also for taking ice cream breaks with me from the library. This thesis has taken a really long time, and though it’ll never feel finished, I’m excited to submit something on a topic that I truly care about.

References

“Awesome Tapes From Africa.” Resident Advisor, www.residentadvisor.net/dj/awesometapesfromafrica/biography.

“Global Policy Forum.” Globalization, GPF, www.globalpolicy.org/globalization.html.

“How Do Record Labels Turn a Profit?” How Do Record Labels Turn a Profit? | Recording Connection Audio Institute, www.recordingconnection.com/reference-library/recording-entrepreneurs/how-do-record -labels-turn-a-profit/.

“How Much Does The Average Artist Earn Per Play On Spotify?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 25 Oct. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/25/how-much-does-the-average-artist-earn-per-pl ay-on-spotify/#285d78f96e48.

“Intellectual Property Clause.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 21 Sept. 2009, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause.

“Music's Lost Decade: Sales Cut in Half.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/.

“New Figures Show Payouts of Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube.” Musically, Jan. 2017, musically.com/2017/01/17/new-figures-show-per-stream-payouts-from-spotify-apple-mu sic-youtube-and-more/.

“Number of Paying Spotify Subscribers Worldwide from July 2010 to January 2018 (in Millions).” Statista, 2018, www.statista.com/statistics/244995/number-of-paying-spotify-subscribers/.

“Omar Souleyman.” Know Your Meme, 2 Nov. 2017, knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/omar-souleyman.

“Omar Souleyman, Not a Debaser but an Arab Conduit to the West.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 30 Mar. 2016, www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/03/musical-cross-over. 82

“RA.517 Awesome Tapes From Africa.” Resident Advisor, 25 Apr. 2016, www.residentadvisor.net/podcast-episode.aspx?id=517.

“Review: Omar Souleyman - Wenu Wenu.” Resident Advisor, 7 Nov. 2013, www.residentadvisor.net/reviews/13873.

“The World's Most Valuable Resource Is No Longer Oil, but Data.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 6 May 2017, www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-approach-a ntitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource.

“Tin Pan Alley.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 15 Sept. 2014, www.britannica.com/art/Tin-Pan-Alley-musical-history.

“Value.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value.

“Warni Warni (Official Video).” Performance by Omar Souleyman, YouTube, 22 Oct. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVlgMEFu1PI.

Adorno, Theodor, et al. “The Culture Industry as Mass Deception.” Literary Theory: an Anthology, Wiley Blackwell, 2017.

Ahmed, S. “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, 2007, pp. 149–168.

Anderson, Chris. Free: How Today's Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing. Random House Business, 2010.

Baca, George. “Legends of Fordism: Between Myth, History, and Foregone Conclusions.” Social Analysis, vol. 48, no. 3, Jan. 2004, pp. 169–178.

Baym, Nancy K. “The Swedish Model: Balancing Markets and Gifts in the Music Industry.”Popular Communication, vol. 9, no. 1, 2011, pp. 22–38.

Bellis, Mary. “Meet the Men Who Created the MP3.” ThoughtCo, 19 Apr. 2017, www.thoughtco.com/history-of-mp4-1992132.

Berlant. “On the Case.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 33, no. 4, 2007, pp. 663–672.

Berumen, Gwen. “Breaking Down Cultural Appropriation in Pop Music and More.” BUST, 5 Aug. 2015, bust.com/general/12778-breaking-down-cultural-appropriation-in-pop-music-and-more.h tml.

Beta, Andy. “Omar Souleyman: The Wedding Singer.” Spin, 22 Oct. 2013, www.spin.com/2013/10/omar-souleyman-wenu-wenu-feature/.

Bjork. “You Must Hear This: Omar Souleyman.” NPR, NPR, 29 June 2009, www.npr.org/2009/06/29/106047345/you-must-hear-this-omar-souleyman?sc=fb&cc=fp.

Blackburn, Robin. “History - British History in Depth: Enslavement and Industrialisation.” BBC, BBC, 17 Feb. 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/industrialisation_article_01.shtml#three.

Boyer, Jake. “Omar Souleyman Interview: From Wedding Singer to Mad Decent.” Highsnobiety, Highsnobiety, 4 Feb. 2018, www.highsnobiety.com/2017/11/01/omar-souleyman-interview-to-syria-with-love/.

Brain, Marshall. “How Recording Contracts Work.” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 22 May 2003, entertainment.howstuffworks.com/recording-contract2.htm.

Breihan, Tom. “Björk Collaborates With Omar Souleyman.” Björk Collaborates With Omar Souleyman | Pitchfork, Pitchfork, 17 Feb. 2011, pitchfork.com/news/41616-bjork-collaborates-with-omar-souleyman/.

Breitman, George, et al. The Assassination of Malcolm X. Pathfinder Press, 2001.

Brenkert, George G. “Freedom and Private Property in Marx.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 8, no. 2, 1979, pp. 122–147.

Britton, Luke Morgan. “Martin Shkreli Leaks $2 Million Wu-Tang Clan Album to Mark Trump Election Win.” NME, NME, 9 Nov. 2016, www.nme.com/news/music/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album-leak-trump-1838051.

Brown, Jonathan. “Spotify: 1 Million Plays, £108 Return.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 13 Apr. 2010,

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/spotify-1-million-plays-108-retur n-1944051.html.

Bryant, Martin. “20 Years Ago Today, the World Wide Web Was Born - TNW Insider.” The Next Web, 3 Mar. 2016, thenextweb.com/insider/2011/08/06/20-years-ago-today-the-world-wide-web-opened-to- the-public/.

Caless, Kit. “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin: the Bizarre Story of the $2m Wu-Tang Clan Album.” New Statesman, 8 Jan. 2018, www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/01/once-upon-time-shaolin-bizarre-story-2 m-wu-tang-clan-album.

Carr, Nicholas. “Digital Sharecropping.” Utopia Is Creepy: And Other Provocations, edited by Nicholas Carr, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016.

Castells, Manuel. “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, 2008, pp. 78–93.

Clayton, Jace. Uproot: Travels in Twenty-First-Century Music and Global Digital Culture. Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2016.

Clinton, Hillary. “Price Gouging like This in the Specialty Drug Market Is Outrageous. Tomorrow I'll Lay out a Plan to Take It on. -H Https://T.co/9Z0Aw7aI6h.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Sept. 2015, twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/645974772275408896?lang=en.

Cox, Oliver Cromwell. Caste, Class, and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. Monthly Review Press, 1948.

Cummings, Alex Sayf. Democracy of Sound: Music Piracy and the Remaking of American Copyright in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Davies, Stephen. “Versions of Musical Works and Literary Translations.” Philosophers on Music: Experience, Meaning and Work, edited by Kathleen Stock, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 79–92.

Diamond, Dan. “Martin Shkreli Admits He Messed Up: He Should've Raised Prices Even Higher.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 10 Mar. 2016,

www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/12/03/what-martin-shkreli-says-now-i-shouldve -raised-prices-higher/#2512f6de1362.

Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. “Wu-Tang Clan | Biography & History.” AllMusic, www.allmusic.com/artist/wu-tang-clan-mn0000959876/biography.

Eustice, Kyle. “Martin Shkreli's EBay Sale Of Wu-Tang Clan's ‘Once Upon A Time In Shaolin’ Is Bogus.”HipHopDX, 20 Sept. 2017, hiphopdx.com/news/id.44692/title.martin-shkrelis-ebay-sale-of-wu-tang-clans-once-upo n-a-time-in-shaolin-is-bogus.

Fleischer, Adam. “The Guy Who Bought That $2 Million Wu-Tang Album Is A Real-Life Supervillain.” MTV News, 9 Dec. 2015, www.mtv.com/news/2684438/wu-tang-clan-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-2-million-sold- martin-shkreli/.

Fuchs, Christian. “Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet.” The Information Society, vol. 26, no. 3, 2010, pp. 179–196.

Ganz, Jacob. “The Decade In Music: The Way We Listen Now.” NPR, NPR, 2 Dec. 2009, www.npr.org/2009/12/02/121023882/the-decade-in-music-the-way-we-listen-now.

Gay, Federico Ferro. “Cultural Colonialism.” The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 1, 1 Apr. 1974, pp. 153–159.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press, 1983.

Gilkes, Alexander, and RZA. “The Online Auction House.” Paddle8, Mar. 2014, paddle8.com/wu-tang/.

Gill, Rosalind, and Andy Pratt. “In the Social Factory?” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 25, no. 7-8, 2008, pp. 1–30.

Gobry, Pascal-Emmanuel. “EXPLAINER: What Is The Freemium Business Model?” Business Insider, Business Insider, 8 Apr. 2011, www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-freemium-business-model-2011-4?international=t rue&r=US&IR=T.

Gordon, Smash. “Crate Diggin': Digital Niyabinghi Picks His Favourite Jungle Techno Records - Fabric Blog.”Fabric London, 16 Dec. 2014, www.fabriclondon.com/blog/view/crate-diggin-digital-niyabinghi-picks-his-favourite-jungl e-techno-records.

Graham, David A. “Can the Feds Free Wu-Tang's Album From 'Pharma Bro'?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 17 Dec. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-wu-tang- asset-forfeiture/421011/.

Greene, K. J. “Copyright, Culture & Black Music: A Legacy of Unequal Protection.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 21, 1999, pp. 339–354.

Guerassio, Jason. “A 23-Year-Old Rapper Who Has No Label Just Made History with His Grammy Win.” Business Insider, 12 Feb. 2017, www.businessinsider.nl/chance-the-rapper-grammy-win-2017-2/?international=true&r=U S.

Hall, Stuart. Modernity: an Introduction to Modern Societies. Blackwell, 2011.

Hayes, Adam. “How Does Spotify Make Money? (NFLX, AAPL).” Investopedia, 12 May 2017, www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spotify-makes-internet-music-make-m oney.asp.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Subculture: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Hendrickson, Tad. “Q&A: Awesome Tapes From Africa's Brian Shimkovitz On Cassette DJing, His New Label, And His Overflowing Mailbox.” Village Voice, 28 Sept. 2011, www.villagevoice.com/2011/09/28/qa-awesome-tapes-from-africas-brian-shimkovitz-on- cassette-djing-his-new-label-and-his-overflowing-mailbox/.

Hong, Seung-Hyun. “Measuring The Effect Of Napster On Recorded Music Sales: Difference-In-Differences Estimates Under Compositional Changes.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, pp. 297–324.

Horning, Rob. “The Trouble with Digital Conservatism.” The New Inquiry, 18 Apr. 2017, thenewinquiry.com/the-trouble-with-digital-conservatism/.

Jesse, Bob. “Fordism and Post-Fordism: a Critical Reformulation.” Bob Jessop, 5 Nov. 2013, bobjessop.org/2013/11/05/fordism-and-post-fordism-a-critical-reformulation/.

Johnson, Miranda. “Method Man Thinks Waiting 88 Years to Release 'Once Upon a Time in Shaolin' Is Stupid - XXL.” XXL Mag, 4 Mar. 2015, www.xxlmag.com/news/2015/03/method-man-wu-tang-clan-album-88-years/.

Kasaras, Kostas. “Music in the Age of Free Distribution: MP3 and Society.” First Monday, vol. 7, no. 1, 2002.

Keen, Steve. “Use-Value, Exchange Value, and the Demise of Marx's Labor Theory of Value.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 15, no. 01, 1993, pp. 107–120.

Kiely, Ray. “Globalization, Post-Fordism and the Contemporary Context of Development.” International Sociology, vol. 13, no. 1, 1998, pp. 95–115.

Kornhaber, Spencer. “Wu-Tang Clan and Hip-Hop's Obsession With the Art World.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 5 Mar. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/03/wu-tang-clan-method-man-and-hip- hops-misguided-obsession-with-the-art-world/386842/.

Kot, Greg. Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music. Scribner, 2010.

Kyles, Yohance. “Ghostface Killah Talks 88 Year Ban On Wu-Tang Clan's ‘Once Upon A Time In Shaolin.’”Exclusive Hip Hop News, Interviews, Rumors, Rap & Music Videos | Allhiphop, 3 Apr. 2015, allhiphop.com/2015/04/03/ghostface-killah-wu-tang-clans-88-year-ban-once-upon-a-tim e-in-shaolin-masta-killa/.

Lalami, Laila. “The Identity Politics of Whiteness.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/magazine/the-identity-politics-of-whiteness.html.

Lamont, Tom. “Napster: the Day the Music Was Set Free.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 Feb. 2013, www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/24/napster-music-free-file-sharing.

Lanz, Michelle. “Awesome Tapes from Africa Brings Obscure Musicians to a Wider Audience.” Southern California Public Radio, 14 Nov. 2016,

www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2015/10/01/44679/awesome-tapes-from-africa-reissu es-bring-obscure-m/.

Leonard, Devin, and Annmarie Hordern. “Pharma's Bad Boy Exec Paid $2 Million for Wu-Tang Clan's New Record.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 8 Dec. 2015, www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-album/.

LoGiurato, Brett. “Donald Trump Trashes Former Hedge-Fund Guy Who Jacked up Drug Price: 'He Looks like a Spoiled Brat'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 23 Sept. 2015, www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-martin-shkreli-daraprim-drug-cost-2015-9?inter national=true&r=US&IR=T.

Luling, Todd Van. “The Wu-Tang Clan Origin Story Is The Model For Cultural Change We Need.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Nov. 2016, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rza-wu-tang-clan_us_58223e81e4b0aac62487d299.

Luti, Anthony N. “RECORDING CONTRACTS 101: THE BASICS.” Originally Published in True Magazine.

Mahapatra, Atma Jyoti. “CAPITALISM AND RACISM: A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP?” Rostra Economica, Rostra Economica, 5 June 2017, rostraeconomica.nl/capitalism-and-racism-a-symbiotic-relationship/.

Margonelli, Lisa. “Inside AOL's ‘Cyber-Sweatshop.’” Wired, Conde Nast, 4 June 2017, www.wired.com/1999/10/volunteers/.

Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Aakar, 2016.

Marx, Karl. “Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy.” Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: vol. 28, 1986.

Marx, Karl, et al. The Marx-Engels Reader. W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.

Marx, Karl, and T. B. Bottomore. Karl Marx: Early Writings. McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Masnick, Mike. “'The Dress' A Year Later: The Meme Has Faded, But The Copyright Will Last Forever.” Techdirt., 26 Feb. 2016,

www.techdirt.com/articles/20160226/07381933721/dress-year-later-meme-has-faded-c opyright-will-last-forever.shtml.

Matos, Michaelangelo. “Genre Busting: the Origin of Music Categories.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Aug. 2011, www.theguardian.com/music/2011/aug/25/origins-of-music-genres-hip-hop.

Maultsby, Portia K., and Mellonee V. Burnim. Issues in African American Music: Power, Gender, Race, Representation. Oxon, 2017.

May, Christopher, and Susan Sell. "Forgetting History is Not an Option! Intellectual Property, Public Policy and Economic Development in Context." Birkbeck College, University of London, 15 Sept. 2006, http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/MaySell. Pdf

McDonald, Heather. “How Does a Record Label Decide What Advance to Pay Me?” The Balance, 27 Nov. 2017, www.thebalance.com/how-does-a-record-label-decide-advance-2460963.

Mcintosh, Heather. “Who Owns Culture?” A Companion to Popular Culture, May 2016, pp. 518–536.

McIntyre, Hugh. “Americans Are Spending More Time Listening To Music Than Ever Before.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 9 Nov. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2017/11/09/americans-are-spending-more-time-list ening-to-music-than-ever-before/.

Mokoena, Tshepo. “Omar Souleyman: the Syrian Wedding Singer Wooing the West.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Aug. 2015, www.theguardian.com/music/2015/aug/20/omar-souleyman-syrian-wedding-singer-wooi ng-the-west.

Morley, David, and Kevin Robins. Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. Routledge, 2004.

Morningside (CBC Radio). Transcript of broadcast. 1 April 1992. “The Public Face of the Cultural Appropriation Debate: Who Speaks for Whom? “ Textual Studies in Canada 2, 1992, pp. 30-48

Naylor, Steven. “Appropriation, Culture and Meaning in Electroacoustic Music: A Composer's Perspective.” Organised Sound, vol. 19, no. 2, 2014, pp. 110–116.

O'Connor, Justin. “Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries.” Regional Studies, vol. 49, no. 3, 2013, pp. 374–387.

O'Connor, Roisin. “Martin Shkreli 'Lists Unreleased Wu-Tang Clan Album on EBay', Bids Reach $1m.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 7 Sept. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-alb um-sale-ebay-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin-bids-a7933636.html.

O'Reilly, Tim. “Web 2.0: Compact Definition?” O'Reilly Radar, 1 Oct. 2005 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38552727/OReilly_Radar_-_Web _2.0_Compact_Definition.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires =1504314947&Signature=IEqRmBTtwh8QUAXnPclUGjLrgk4%3D&response-content-di sposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DWeb_2.0_Compact_Definition.pdf ^

Pinsker, Joe. “Should Wu-Tang Sell Its Album to One Man for $5 Million?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 May 2014, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million-one-person-will-get-to-own- the-only-copy-of-the-new-wu-tang-album/371020/.

Pollack, Andrew. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-rais es-protests.html.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. No Gods, No Masters: Edited by Daniel Guerin. Translated by Paul Sharkey, AK Press, 2005.

Reich, Michael. "The economics of racism." Problems in Political Economy (1971): 107-112.

Resnikoff, Paul. “My Band Has 1,000,000 Spotify Streams. Want to See Our Royalties?”Digital Music News, 7 Nov. 2017, www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/26/band-1-million-spotify-streams-royalties/.

Reynolds, Simon. Energy Flash: a Journey through Rave Music and Dance Culture. Faber and Faber, 2013.

Roediger, David. “Labor in White Skin: Race and Working-Class History.” The Year Left, vol. 3, 1988, www.versobooks.com/blogs/2596-labor-in-white-skin-race-and-working-class-history.

Rose, Joel, and Jacob Ganz. “The MP3: A History Of Innovation And Betrayal.” NPR, NPR, 23 Mar. 2011, www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2011/03/23/134622940/the-mp3-a-history-of-innovation -and-betrayal.

Salmon, Richard. “Recording Contracts Explained.” Recording Contracts Explained, Sound on Sound, Apr. 2007, www.soundonsound.com/music-business/recording-contracts-explained.

Sanchez, Daniel. “Spotify: 140 Million Users, $600 Million In Losses, No Profit In Sight.”Digital Music News, 15 June 2017, www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/06/15/spotify-140-million-huge-losses/.

Schafer, R. Murray. “The Soundscape.” The Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, Routledge, 2012, pp. 95–103.

Scluzay. “A DISCUSSION OF 'ONCE UPON A TIME IN SHAOLIN...' WITH THE RZA & CILVARINGZ.” Once Upon A Time In Shaolin..., scluzay.com/eighteight.

Scott, A J. “The US Recorded Music Industry: On the Relations between Organization, Location, and Creativity in the Cultural Economy.” Environment and Planning A, vol. 31, no. 11, 1999, pp. 1965–1984.

Seabrook, John. “Spotify: Friend or Foe?” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 24 Nov. 2014, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams.

Seabrook, John. The Song Machine: inside the Hit Factory. W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.

Sherwin, Adam. “Exiled Syrian Wedding Singer Omar Souleyman Becomes a Big Hit with Hip Western Music Fans.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 25 Oct. 2013,

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/exiled-syrian-wedding-singer-o mar-souleyman-becomes-a-big-hit-with-hip-western-music-fans-8904307.html.

Shimkovitz, Brian. “About.” Awesome Tapes From Africa, www.awesometapes.com/about/.

Shimkovitz, Brian. “Collateral Damage: Awesome Tapes From Africa's Brian Shimkovitz - The Wire.” The Wire Magazine , May 2012, www.thewire.co.uk/in-writing/essays/collateral-damage_awesome-tapes-from-africa_s-b rian-shimkovitz.

Shimkovitz, Brian. “Florence Namirimu - Ziba Bbiri.” Awesome Tapes From Africa, 5 Jan. 2017, www.awesometapes.com/florence-namirimu-ziba-bbiri/.

Siddiqi, Ayesha. “Can the White Girl Twerk?” The New Inquiry, 6 June 2017, thenewinquiry.com/can-the-white-girl-twerk/.

Sinclair, Gary, and Julie Tinson. “Psychological Ownership and Music Streaming Consumption.” Journal of Business Research, vol. 71, 2017, pp. 1–9.

Singleton, Micah. “Spotify Now Has 140 Million Active Users.” The Verge, The Verge, 15 June 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15807826/spotify-140-million-active-users.

Smith, Caspar Llewellyn. “Awesome Tapes ... the Hunt for Africa's Lost Treasure Trove of Music.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Oct. 2011, www.theguardian.com/music/2011/oct/02/awesome-tapes-from-africa-label.

Smith, Michael D. STREAMING, SHARING, STEALING: Big Data and the Future of Entertainment. MIT PRESS, 2017.

Srnicek, Nick. Platform Capitalism. Polity, 2017.

Stake, Robert E. “Case Studies.” Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norma K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications., pp. 236–247.

Stake, Robert E. “The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry.” Case Study Method, pp. 18–26.

Sterne, Jonathan. MP3 The Meaning of a Format. Access and Diversity, Crane Library, University of British Columbia, 2013.

Sterne, Jonathan, et al. “The mp3 as Cultural Artifact.” Media Studies: A Reader, edited by Sue Thornham, Routledge, 1996.

Sturgeon, Jonathon. “I Heard the $5 Million Wu-Tang Album That Won't Be Played Again in Public for 88 Years.”Flavorwire, 3 Mar. 2015, flavorwire.com/507652/the-final-wu-tang-clan-album-88-years-5-million-one-copy.

Stutz, Colin. “You Might Be Dead Before Wu-Tang Clan's 'Once Upon A Time In Shaolin' Comes Out.”Billboard, 2 Mar. 2015, www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6487612/wu-tang-clan-once-upon-a-time-i n-shaolin-album-out-in-88-years.

Swift, Taylor. “For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 7 July 2014, www.wsj.com/articles/for-taylor-swift-the-future-of-music-is-a-love-story-1404763219.

Swift, Zoe Thomas & Tim. “Who Is Martin Shkreli - 'the Most Hated Man in America'?” BBC News, BBC, 4 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34331761.

Szaten, Gabriel. “Cover Story – To Syria, With Love: The Heartbroken Folk of Omar Souleyman.” Crack Magazine, crackmagazine.net/article/long-reads/syria-love-heartbroken-folk-omar-souleyman/.

Taylor, Timothy Dean., et al. Music, Sound, and Technology in America: a Documentary History of Early Phonograph, Cinema, and Radio. Duke University Press, 2012.

Terranova, T. “Free Labor: PRODUCING CULTURE FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY.” Social Text, vol. 18, no. 2 63, Jan. 2000, pp. 33–58.

Thompson, Frederick G. “Fordism, Post-Fordism, and the Flexible System of Production.” Collaboratory for Digital Discourse and Culture, Virginia Tech, www.cddc.vt.edu/digitalfordism/fordism_materials/thompson.htm.

Towse, Ruth. “Cultural Industries.” A Handbook of Cultural Economics, 2011.

Trammell, Matthew. “Omar Souleyman's Wedding Songs Head West.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 24 Aug. 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/04/omar-souleymans-wedding-songs-head-we st.

Tsioulcas, Anastasia. “Even With Travel Ban Blocked, Artists Are Still Left Hanging.” NPR, NPR, 6 Feb. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/02/06/513255643/even-with-travel-ban-blocked-ar tists-are-still-left-hanging.

Williams, Maxwell. “A Decade of Music: Awesome Tapes from Africa.” KCET, 24 June 2016, www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/a-decade-of-music-awesome-tapes-from-africa.

Williams, Raymond. Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Witt, Stephen. “The Man Who Broke the Music Business.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/27/the-man-who-broke-the-music-business.

Wortham, Jenna. “The Internet Is Where We Share - and Steal - the Best Ideas.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 June 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/magazine/the-internet-is-where-we-share-and-steal-the-b est-ideas.html.

Zadeh, Joe. “Wu-Tang Clan Are Killing Music.” Clash Magazine, 4 Apr. 2014, www.clashmusic.com/features/wu-tang-clan-are-killing-music.

Ziff, Bruce H., and Pratima V. Rao. “Introduction to Cultural Appropriation: A Framework for Analysis.” Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation, Rutgers University Press, 1997.