Discourse, justification and critique: towards a legitimate digital copyright regime?

Digitization and the internet have posed an acute economic challenge to rights holders in the cultural industries. Faced with a threat to their form of capital accumulation from copyright infringement, rights holders have used discourse strategically in order to try and legitimate and strengthen their position in the digital copyright debate with governments and media users. In so doing, they have appealed to general justificatory principles – about what is good, right, and just – that provide some scope for opposition and critique, as other groups contest their interpretation of these principles and the evidence used to support them. In this article, we address the relative lack of academic attention paid to the role of discourse in copyright debates by analysing user-directed marketing campaigns and submissions to UK government policy consultations. We show how legitimacy claims are justified and critiqued, and conclude that amid these debates rests some hope of achieving a more legitimate policy resolution to the copyright wars – or at least the possibility of beginning a more constructive dialogue

Online consumer misbehaviour: an application of neutralization theory

Studies have argued that misbehaviour by customers is becoming increasingly prevalent in certain sectors. However, online consumer misbehaviour is comparatively under-researched. The focus of the current study is peer-to-peer activities, including copying music, movies, software or video games: a phenomenon which affects the entertainment sector as a whole and costs the industry billions of pounds each year. Neutralization theory provides a potentially fruitful perspective from which to explore consumer justifications and rationalizations for their online misbehaviour. The aim of this paper is to explore the extent to which peer-to-peer users employ techniques of neutralization to justify prior-to behaviour or rationalize their activities post behaviour. First, a review of online customer misbehaviour is provided, followed by an overview of existing research into the techniques of neutralization. Following a discussion of the research methods employed, findings regarding the peer-to-peer online misbehaviours and neutralization techniques are presented. Data analysis reveals that peer-to-peer file-sharers employ (often multiple) techniques of neutralization in order to pre-justify or post-event rationalize their activities, including: denial of victim; denial of injury; denial of responsibility; claim of normality; claim of relative acceptability; justification by comparison; and appeal to higher loyalties. The paper concludes with a series of implications for both theory and practice

Ambivalent globalization, amorphous vulnerable nationalism Considering debates about nation and national positioning within the global from the point of view of young Australians

Debates about nation and national positioning within the global exemplified in the Australian culture, history and literacy ‘wars’ have tended to be definitive and apparently oppositional in tone. Yet these debates have proceeded in the absence of a concretized notion of Australian identity and do not adequately address the complexities of political identification and allegiance. Despite intense concerns in these ‘wars’ about the views of young people and the role of their schooling, young people do not necessarily have less well-developed conceptions of Australia’s place in a globalizing world than their elders. Our research on young people’s responses to globalization, global cultural products and national identity offers some suggestive new directions for considering these issues and the school curriculum, directions which are built upon the actual ways in which young Australians express uncertainty about US—Australian relations, while simultaneously identifying with American cultural products.Chris Beasley, Chilla Bulbeck and Gregory McCarth