Problem: Cases like Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, which fined a student $675,000 for illegal file sharing have solidified the application of copyright to the digital realm. But despite legal penalties and a wide variety of digital purchasing options, illegally downloading and sharing music or movies is still common amongst young adults.
Research question(s): Why do college students continue to engage in music downloading despite its illegality? What allows this illegal activity to be accepted as normal while other illegal acts might be conceived as immoral?
Explain the research: I conducted an ethnographic research project with the Texas Hub, a clandestine invite-only file sharing network organized by students at a major research university in Texas.
Findings: Members articulated justifications including disregard for the profit loss of large music conglomerates or already rich artists, the need to prioritize funds for other necessities, the notion that "everyone does it", and the idea of the Texas Hub as a group organized around communal sharing rather than individual greed.
Thesis: I argue that the organization of the Texas Hub has generated an alternative moral economy and sharing acts as currency. Due to this strong communal atmosphere, they have inverted the legal order in favor of a "social banditry" where it is acceptable to steal the intellectual property of the rich to help other students gain access to entertainment materials.
Graffiti is a form of expression that arose in New York and Philadelphia in the late 1960s and persists in different variations across the world today. It has been characterized as radical political expression, deviant action, a visual component of hip-hop, and a catalyst for serious crime (Rose 1994; Brewer & Miller, 1990; Miller 2002; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Ethnographic studies focused on the lived experiences of graffiti writers, the fame associated with “getting up”, identity construction, politics of subversion, as well as intersections with public space, systems of inequality, and the law (Austin, 2001; Castleman, 1982; Ferrell 1993). The harsh criminalization and regulation of graffiti that began in the 1970s and 80s was compounded by policing practices that disproportionately impacted minorities (Kramer, 2010; Fassin, 2013).
This fervent insistence that graffiti is vandalism rather than art can be classically situated as a separation of the sacred and the profane, the polluted and the pristine, to protect the extraordinary status of certain objects, people, and acts, thereby reinforcing an existing social order (Durkheim, 1912; Douglas, 1966; Caillois, 1959). These labels not only mirror current social divisions but can also further produce inequalities, primarily through cultivated symbolic representations (Becker 1963; Goffman 1959, 1963), i.e. the forged association between graffiti and gang violence. This concerted criminalization of graffiti writers ascribes “blame for street crime not to poverty and marginalization, but to the poor and marginalized” (Ferrell, 2001).
Despite the capacity of subcultures or counter publics to invert hegemonic ideals within smaller communities (Hebdige, 1979; Warner, 2002), ideological “consensus” still largely shapes understandings of everyday events and subsequent decisions within those communities (Hall). For instance, while participation in graffiti was not restricted along racial or class lines (Castleman, 1982; Ferrell, 1993), graffiti crews often used the racist stereotype of black criminality to their advantage by having white members steal paint while security officers were focused on members of darker skin (Snyder, 2011).